Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDER (MARGATE)

Bill to confirm a Provisional Order made by the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation under the General Pier and Harbour Act, 1861, relating to Margate, presented by Mr. Watkinson; read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills and to be printed.[Bill 106.]

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE

Houses (Prices and Annual Values)

Mr. Page: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will have a comparison made of the sale prices of private dwelling-houses, as noted upon the particulars delivered to the Commissioners of Inland Revenue under Section 28 of the Finance Act, 1931, and the annual values of such dwelling-houses, as assessed for Income Tax, Schedule A; and if he will make a statement concerning the relationship so found between current sale prices and annual values during the most recently convenient six-months' period.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. J. E. S. Simon): My right hon. Friend does not think that the value of the result of such an inquiry would justify the work involved.

Mr. Page: Would it not be valuable, however, to have these figures to assist landlords and tenants now negotiating for the purchase of properties as a result of the Rent Act? Will not my hon. and learned Friend consider this again and see whether such a guide could be produced?

Mr. Simon: Even in the light of the considerations urged by my hon. Friend,

it would demand an unjustifiable and disproportionate amount of work and expense.

Mr. Page: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give an estimate, based upon information supplied to the Commissioners of Inland Revenue under Section 28 of the Finance Act, 1931, and other information provided by stamp duty on conveyances, of the comparison between the current sale price of a private dwellinghouse at £1,500 to £3,000 and the sale price of a similar house in 1956 and 1957, respectively.

Mr. Simon: A small sample suggests an increase of between 1 per cent. and 2 per cent. for 1958 over 1956 and 1957.

Purchase Tax Reductions (Prices)

Miss Burton: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware that some firms are not passing on to their customers reductions in Purchase Tax made in the Budget; and if he will make a statement on this position with regard to current stocks of merchandise and with regard to stocks not yet held.

Mr. Simon: It is common knowledge that many firms decided to reduce the prices of existing stocks immediately after the Budget. As to goods to which the Budget reductions apply, I would refer the hon. Member to Answers given by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade to Questions on 24th April.

Miss Burton: That did not get us anywhere. Is the Financial Secretary aware that Customs and Excise men said that the reductions in Purchase Tax should mean a reduction to customers of 1½d. in the shilling on cosmetics? Is he further aware that big firms such as Goya and Yardley actually put up their prices? Does he not agree that such firms should be named in this House? Am I not right in assuming that the cosmetics industry is a flourishing one financially?

Mr. Simon: I am not aware of any official statement made on behalf of the Customs and Excise. The other matters not only lie outside the sphere of my personal experience but within the province of my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade.

Mrs. Slater: Is the hon. and learned Gentleman not aware that, as I said last week, this is a betrayal of the purpose of the Purchase Tax reduction? In the line of cosmetics, only one cosmetics firm has not put up its prices. What has happened is that the firms have put up their cost price so that the retailer gets no more profit but the manufacturer does, and the consumer, of course, is the person who always has to suffer in the long run. Cannot the hon. and learned Gentleman at least ask his right hon. Friend to make representations to these people who defeat the purpose of the Budget?

Mr. Simon: As I indicated, and as the hon. Lady recognises, these are matters for my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, and no doubt his attention will be drawn to the matter. In any case, I believe that the hon. Lady the Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mrs. Mann) is shortly going on a shopping expedition with my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade.

Mrs. Mann: I have had no notice from the Minister that he intends going shopping.

Tourists' Motor Cars (Carnets)

Mr. E. Johnson: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware that most European countries no longer insist on a visitor, bringing a motor car into their country for a visit, being in possession of a Customs carnet for their car; and if, as a result of his examination of the question of simplifying the system, he will now grant similar facilities to visitors to the United Kingdom.

Mr. Simon: No, Sir. We must continue to require these documents for the reasons given by my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) on 12th December in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mr. Shepherd).

Mr. Johnson: In view of the great importance of the tourist trade as an earner of foreign exchange, does my hon. and learned Friend not agree that everything should be done to remove these vexatious restrictions? Why is it impossible for us to do what other countries can do quite easily?

Mr. Simon: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend about the importance of the tourist industry, but we have a large home industry to protect and a large revenue at stake.

Mr. Ernest Davies: Cannot the Financial Secretary look at this again? Is he aware that the number of cars that will be sold on this market which are imported from abroad under tourist licences will be very small indeed and could not possibly be a danger to the home trade, and, furthermore, that this is a definite handicap to our tourist industry? Is he not aware that there is considerable dissatisfaction at the long delays which occur at Dover when tourists bring in their cars? If the carnet were abolished, would this not facilitate the entry of these cars?

Mr. Simon: I have recently looked into this matter personally. The Customs authorities have recently reduced the scale of examination of visitors' cars at the ports, and I hope that this will help in the matters to which the hon. Member has referred.

Payments (Receipts)

Mr. Oliver: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that, since the coming into force of the Cheques Act, 1957, the commercial practice has now developed of failing to send receipts for payments made by cheque whether such receipts are requested by the payer or not; and whether by reason of this change of practice it is now intended to repeal or modify Section 103 of the Stamp Act, 1891, which provides a penalty of £10 for failure to give a stamped receipt for any payment when called upon; if he is further aware that this change is against the interest of the payer who is, or may be, put to the inconvenience of proving association of a paid cheque to a particular account instead of having, as hitherto, the bill returned duly receipted; and if he will now make a further statement of Government policy on this matter.

Mr. Simon: My right hon. Friend is keeping this matter under review, but the Finance Bill now before Parliament contains no proposal for changing the present law. I take this opportunity of repeating that a person who fails to give a duly


stamped receipt for a payment of £2 or over, when required to do so by the payer, renders himself liable to a fine of £10.

Mr. Oliver: I thank the hon. and learned Gentleman for his reply, but does he not realise that plenty of evidence could be given—I myself could provide it—that receipts are not given when the sum is over £2? As the Department is keeping its eye on the matter, when will it be appropriate to put down another Question on the subject?

Mr. Simon: I do not want to encourage the hon. and learned Gentleman to put dawn another Question at too early a date. With regard to the first part of his supplementary question, if there is difficulty about this and if a receipt is not given when demanded, the matter should be reported to the Commissioners of Inland Revenue, who can then take appropriate action.

Mr. Page: Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that, on a very simple calculation, it can be shown that this practice of dispensing with receipts is saving commerce, industry, the professions and the local authorities about £13 million a year?

Mr. Simon: I have no statistics to support that figure, and, of course, there is a Question on the Order Paper about the possible loss of revenue; but those are the sort of considerations my right hon. Friend will take into account.

Entertainments Duty (Cinemas)

Mr. J. Howard: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is now the estimated annual cost of collecting entertainment tax from cinemas in the current financial year.

Mr. Simon: I regret that no separate estimate of the cost of collecting this duty is available.

Mr. Howard: Does my hon. and learned Friend not consider it important to obtain these statistics? Unless we know the cost of collecting the Entertainments Duty, it is quite impossible to view the value of the tax in relation to its cost. Will he please take steps to obtain the information?

Mr. Simon: The officers who are charged with the administration of the Entertainments Duty have many other

duties as well. This is only a small part of their obligations. So far as the general position is concerned, the cost of collecting and administering Customs and Excise Duties and allied matters was about 0·82 per cent. of the revenue collected, and it is not thought that the proportionate cost of collecting Entertainments Duty differs substantially from that.

Household Cookers (Lighters and Safety Devices)

Mrs. Mann: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will state the amount of Customs Duty and Purchase Tax on automatic lighters for household cookers and other purposes.

Mr. Simon: The rate of Purchase Tax applicable to automatic lighters for household cookers, if sold separately, is 30 per cent. Liability to Customs or Excise Duty varies according to the lighter, and particulars will be found on pages 161 and 249 of the Customs and Excise Tariff. I regret that the total yield of revenue from these sources is not available.

Mrs. Mann: Is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware that matches are the greatest cause of accident in the home and that mothers who avoid matches are penalised, on a 7s. 6d. hand lighter, by taxes totalling 5s.? Is that not ridiculous.

Mr. Simon: I know the hon. Lady's great interest in this matter, and, indeed, I had the benefit of it when I was at the Home Office. I would emphasise to her, however, that the safety match is not necessarily more dangerous than an automatic lighter.

Mrs. Mann: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the amount of Purchase Tax on the Crayleigh safety device attached to cookers; and if he will now abolish this tax.

Mr. Simon: I am told that the Purchase Tax on this device amounts to 4s. 11d. My right hon. Friend has carefully considered the hon. Lady's representations that it should be freed from tax, but he has come to the conclusion that it would be wrong to discriminate among the domestic safety devices which happen to fall within the scope of Purchase Tax.

Mrs. Mann: Is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware that I am perfectly satisfied that it would not matter if the


Purchase Tax were taken off, having regard to the volume of evidence of evading the passing on of the Tax relief which is now in the hands of the President of the Board of Trade? I am quite sure that his Purchase Tax reduction is a farce and is useless.

Cost of Living (Purchase Tax Reductions)

Mrs. Mann: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer by what figure the Budget reductions on Purchase Tax have reduced the cost of living.

Mr. Simon: While the Budget changes will represent only a fraction of a point in the Index of Retail Prices, they will nevertheless reduce the burden of taxation this year by about £30 million.

Mrs. Mann: How does the hon. and learned Gentleman arrive at these conclusions? Is he not aware that the relief from Purchase Tax is not being passed on and will not be passed on? The hon. and learned Gentleman, in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South (Miss Burton), referred to what was said by the President of the Board of Trade on 24th April, when the right hon. Gentleman was asked if he would ensure, by legislation, that Purchase Tax reliefs are passed on to the consuming public and not delayed on the way. The right hon. Gentleman gave an unequivocal "No, Sir." So they can do as they like. The hon. and learned Gentleman's right hon. Friend instead of being a Santa Claus is, therefore, a wolf in sheep's clothing.

Mr. Simon: There is no question but that by and large the Purchase Tax reductions are being passed on to the public, as anybody going through the shopping centres of any town can see.

Mr. Jay: Can the Financial Secretary tell us how much of this £30 million has been passed on?

Mr. Simon: The right hon. Gentleman, who was Financial Secretary himself, knows that the £30 million is for the rest of the year.

Mr. Hirst: Is my hon. Friend aware that, ever since Budget Day, the national and local newspapers have been absolutely smothered with advertisements showing reductions of price?

Mr. Simon: Yes, Sir.

Steel Industry (Public Investment)

Mr. Palmer: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will state the total value of public investment through the Iron and Steel Holding and Realisation Agency in the steel industry, including subsidiary companies, part holdings in companies now sold, and loans made or contracted to be made.

The Paymaster-General (Mr. Reginald Maudling): The total book value of the Agency's investments, including loans contracted to be made, is £223·5 million.

Mr. Palmer: Does not that interesting Answer indicate just how dependent the British steel industry still is on public support and investment?

Mr. Maudling: Many deductions could be drawn from that Answer, but I am not sure that I will accept that one.

Income Tax (Schedule A)

Mr. Page: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what he estimates would be the saving in Inland Revenue staff salaries if taxpayers assessed to Income Tax, Schedule A, were entitled to claim as an allowance the tax so assessed for any period of residential occupation of the property by the taxpayer, his wife or other dependent relative, bearing in mind that maintenance claims on such property would then be unnecessary.

Mr. Simon: On the assumption that my hon. Friend's Question is directed to the abolition of tax under Schedule A for residential owner-occupiers, giving that term a slightly extended meaning, the saving might be of the order of £½ million.

Mr. Barter: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what he estimates to be the proportion in the latest convenient year of owner-occupied residential properties in respect of which claims for maintenance against Income Tax, Schedule A, assessments are not made.

Mr. Simon: About eleven-twelfths in 1957–58.

Mr. Barter: Does not my hon. and learned Friend agree that this high proportion indicates that many people who could make claims are not doing so, possibly because they are unaware that


they can do so, and that if, in fact, they did claim it would substantially increase the amount refunded?

Mr. Simon: To some extent, the small proportion may be due to ignorance of the procedure, but not entirely, because there is the statutory deduction. Of course, if more claims were made, the yield would be less.

Mr. Page: What would be the return of Schedule A tax if all claims were made? Would it not, in fact, be a very small sum? Under those circumstances, will not the Chancellor consider abolishing Schedule A tax altogether?

Mr. Simon: In the absence of claims, it is impossible to quantify them.

National Savings

Captain Pilkington: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the percentage increase in savings of all sorts in 1951 and 1957 compared with 1946.

Mr. Maudling: Total national saving, before providing for depreciation and stock appreciation, increased by just over 400 per cent. between 1946 and 1951, and by 700 per cent. between 1946 and 1957. These figures cover saving by persons, companies, public corporations and central and local government, and are based on the estimates given in Table 6 of the National Income Blue Books for 1956 and 1957, and the recent National Income White Paper (Cmd. 398).

Captain Pilkington: Is this not yet another very welcome sign of the great success of this Government?

Universities (Students)

Mr. Malcolm MacPherson: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he expects proposals to assure better coordination in the acceptance of suitably qualified students to be made by the universities.

Mr. Simon: The universities are at present considering improvements in the procedure for the admission of students and are having informal discussions on the subject. I understand that the results will probably be made public late in the summer.

Mr. MacPherson: In view of the numbers of students who are now qualified

for entry but who have been unable to obtain places, can the hon. and learned Gentleman give some indication of whether it will be possible to put into practice the results before the beginning of next Session. Will the report come in time for that?

Mr. Simon: The hon. Gentleman knows that that is really a matter for the universities themselves and not for my right hon. Friend. I do not know whether the report will contain matters which can be implemented in time for the next academic year, but the universities, as I happen to know, already have the matter under review individually.

Mr. Ede: Can the hon. and learned Gentleman say whether any attention is being given to the need for a vastly increased number of admission places by 1963, when the bulge in the birthrate will reach the universities?

Mr. Simon: Yes. The right hon. Gentleman will remember the statement made by my right hon. Friend about the increased building programme for the middle 'sixties.

Sterling Notes (Import)

Mr. H. Lever: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the total cost in foreign currency to date of the repatriation of £ notes recently undertaken.

Mr. Maudling: An exact figure cannot be given, but during the first month of freedom for imports of sterling notes the amount repatriated appears to have been small.

Mr. Lever: Of course, the Bank of England and the public appear to have different views about what is "small." Could not the House be given some idea of the total figure involved to date in actual money terms rather than the adjectival terms that the Minister has condescended to use?

Mr. Maudling: I do not think it would be possible to give that information. The hon. Member referred to the total cost in foreign currency. The cost in foreign currency is not necessarily anything like the same figure as the total amount of sterling notes imported.

Dollar Securities

Mr. H. Lever: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the total value of United Kingdom-owned dollar securities; whether he will cause these securities to be registered with the Bank of England; and whether he will from time to time publish figures of the value of these securities.

Mr. Maudling: Figures published in the U.S.A. and Canada show that at the end of 1956 the market value of United Kingdom-owned dollar securities was of the order of 3,000 million dollars. I do not propose to have these securities registered with the Bank of England. The holders are already required to deposit them with an authorised depository.

Mr. Lever: Does the Minister really think it a satisfactory situation that he is dependent upon Canadian and American figures to inform him what this fundamental part of our dollar reserves is? What good reason is there that the Bank of England should not have charge of these securities so that, in the event of a crisis similar to that of last September, they will be immediately available to support the £?

Mr. Maudling: The present system of having these deposited with authorisd depositories is quite satisfactory.

Foreign Currency (Forward Deliveries)

Mr. H. Lever: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what facilities are officially made available to United Kingdom importers for the hedging in sterling of obligations undertaken in foreign currency; and whether he will cause these facilities to be extended in such manner as will discourage premature payment for imports and encourage importers to make maximum use of credit facilities from their suppliers.

Mr. Maudling: Authorised banks may sell foreign currency for forward delivery to any United Kingdom importer who has a firm commitment to pay the currency for which cover is required. The second part of the Question does not, therefore, arise.

Mr. Lever: Is the Minister satisfied that the facilities for forward purchase are freely and cheaply available to British importers even for long periods ahead?

Will he look into the matter to see why it is that British importers feel it necessary to make premature payment for imports to protect their currency position and hence bring a kind of speculative pressure to bear upon sterling from time to time?

Mr. Maudling: The fact that people are trying to make forward purchases of currency surely shows they do not intend to make an immediate payment in that currency.

Protective Clothing and Footwear (Tax)

Miss Bacon: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what increases in the purchase of miners' safety boots and helmets have been reported to him over the past year.

Mr. Frank Allaun: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what increases in the purchases of miners' protective boots during the past 12 months have been reported to his Department.

Mr. Mason: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what increases in the purchases of miners' safety helmets and boots during the last financial year have been reported to him.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what change has been noted in his department in the sales of miners' protective clothing in Scotland during the past year.

Mr. Probert: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what increases in purchases of mineworkers' protective clothing, in particular miners' safety boots and helmets, have been reported to him over the last 12 months for Wales.

Mr. D. Griffiths: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer to what extent he has received reports of increased purchases of miners' and quarrymen's protective clothing during the last financial year.

Mrs. Slater: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what reports he has received on the increase in the purchase of protective clothing by miners and quarrymen during the last year.

Mr. Wilfred Paling: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what reports he has received of increases in the purchases of miners' safety boats and protective helmets during the past 12 months.

Mr. R. Edwards: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what increases in purchases of miners' protective equipment have been reported to him from the West Midlands area during the past year.

Mr. B. Taylor: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer to what extent he has received reports of increases in purchases of miners' safety helmets and boots in the Nottinghamshire area over the past 12 months.

Mr. Stones: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what increases in the purchases of miners' safety helmets and boots during the last financial year have been reported to him.

Mr. Owen: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer to what extent he has received reports of increasing purchases of miners' safety equipment, such as boots and protective helmets, over the past year.

Mr. Simon: My right hon. Friend has not received any such reports.

Miss Bacon: Is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware that there will be widespread relief now that this foolish tax has been taken from these articles and that the sales will not go down in the coming year?

Mr. Simon: I cannot accept that the tax was foolish, but I am very grateful for what the hon. Lady has said.

Mr. Mason: Whilst appreciating what the Chancellor of the Exchequer has done in removing this Purchase Tax from miners' safety boots and protective helmets, will he go a stage further and define what are the items of protective clothing and safety equipment? Secondly, will he take steps to remove Purchase Tax from all these articles, particularly having in mind that firemen's helmets are still subject to this tax?

Mr. Simon: Successive Governments have found it impracticable to devise a definition of "protective clothing". It is for that reason that the exemption in favour of miners' helmets has not been extended. But that is no doubt a matter which we can discuss further on the Finance Bill.

Mr. McKay: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware that the estimated revenue from Purchase Tax is

£100,000 per annum; and, in this context, what will be the loss of revenue from the reduction in tax on miners' caps and miners' belts.

Mr. Simon: On the assumption that the first part of the Question refers to the 5 per cent. Purchase Tax on miners' and quarry men's boots and helmets proposed in my right hon. Friend's Budget statement, the Answer is "Yes, Sir." But, as my right hon. Friend announced on Tuesday, he has decided to restore in the Finance Bill the exemptions on these articles. With regard to the second part of the Question, it is not possible to estimate the reduction in revenue on the particular articles referred to.

Mr. McKay: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware that the cost of boots, helmets and general clothing needed by underground workers in the pits is double the cost incurred by most workers in connection with their various trades; and what estimate he has made of the average extra cost to miners per year above that of other workers.

Mr. Simon: The Answer to the first part of the Question is "No, Sir," no statistics are available on which any such comparison could be based; and in these circumstances the second part of the Question does not arise.

Mr. McKay: It may be true that there are no statistics relevant to the point involved, but does not the Financial Secretary think that before such a drastic change is made he might have investigated the problem and had a better idea of what ought to be done?

Mr. Simon: Of course, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor did investigate this matter before making the proposal in the Budget. On the other hand, it was quite clear from last week that the general feeling of the House was that strict logic and administrative tidiness should yield to wide social considerations. I reported that to my right hon. Friend and he again made these articles exempt.

Mr. Bence: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what increases in purchases of industrial workers' protective clothing, particularly miners' safety boots and helmets, have been reported to him over the last twelve months in Scotland.

Mr. Simon: I would refer the hon. Member to my Answers to the Questions just asked by the hon. Lady the Member for Leeds, South-East (Miss Bacon) and other hon. Members. My right hon. Friend does not receive reports of purchases of industrial workers' protective clothing, which has indeed been found to be incapable of definition.

Mr. Bence: Is protective clothing in the form of protective boots and shoes, used in the shipbuilding industry, exempt from taxation as well?

Mr. Simon: Speaking from recollection, I would certainly say that they are not exempt from taxation; but perhaps the hon. Member will put down a specific Question.

Mr. G. Jeger: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what discussions he has had with representatives from the mining industry since imposing Purchase Tax on miners' protective clothing.

Mr. Simon: None, Sir.

Mr. Jeger: Would it not be advisable for the representatives of the Treasury to have discussions with the miners' representatives and similar organisations if in future they have such silly and stupid proposals to bring forward as the taxation of protective clothing?

Mr. Simon: I certainly cannot accept the hon. Member's epithets. It would be contrary to every usage to have discussions before the Budget statement.

Co-operative Societies (Profits Tax)

Mr. Beswick: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the difference in the Profits Tax yield from co-operative societies as the result of the increase in tax rate payable and the allowance now made for interest on share capital.

Mr. Simon: An increase of about £1·3 million.

Mr. Beswick: Will the Financial Secretary recall that the effect on industry generally was a reduction of £16 million and that he himself said that the effect on building societies would be a reduction of about £1 million? Can he say whether it was the intention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, when he made these

changes, to single out the Co-operative movement as being the only form of activity liable to an increased tax liability as a result of recent changes?

Mr. Simon: There is no question of singling out the Co-operative movement. The Profits Tax is a tax on the profits of corporate bodies and, as such, it ought to apply to all such bodies alike. That was the recommendation the Royal Commission on Taxation.

Mr. Jay: Is it the policy of the Government that there should be an increase in the taxation on the profits of co-operative societies at the present time? If so, what is the justification for it?

Mr. Simon: Certain corporate bodies under the re-organisation of taxes recommended by the Royal Commission will, in the result, have to pay more tax and some will have to pay less.

Mr. Beswick: Will the Financial Secretary be good enough to give an assurance that he will receive a deputation to discuss this matter in rather closer detail?

Mr. Simon: Gladly.

RADIOACTIVITY (FOODSTUFFS)

Mr. Hastings: asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the anxiety felt by many, he will publish a monthly report giving details of radioactive fallout and radioactivity of representative samples of milk and vegetables of areas in which observations are being made.

Mr. Mason: asked the Prime Minister if, in view of the anxiety felt by many medical officers of health about the growing radioactive contamination of milk and vegetables, he will advise the Medical Research Council to issue a monthly report of the results of the monitoring work in this country.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Macmillan): The level of radio-activity in milk, vegetables and other foodstuffs is now being continuously investigated under the direction of the Medical Research Council and the Agricultural Research Council. The situation over the country as a whole or in any particular area does not change detectably from month to month and only an annual review of the collected data can give a reliable assessment of the situation. To


publish isolated monthly data for particular samples would tend to mislead rather than help. Any significant change in the situation would be reported to me as soon as it became known.

Mr. Hastings: Is the Prime Minister aware that there are temporary changes in different areas at varying times, and that for a time, in the case of the Wind-scale disaster, there was a great increase in radioactivity over London? Is he also aware—I am sure he is—that milk and vegetables are especially valuable foods for children, who are most affected by the danger of radioactivity, that parents are really very anxious and that regular information would put them at their ease?

The Prime Minister: Of course, there are these occasional situations, but I am informed that it would really be much better to stick to what we have done, which is the periodical publication of this data, instead of month by month, which would be misleading and not helpful. On the other hand, I hope that the next report will be published by about the middle of this year.

Mr. Mason: But surely the Prime Minister cannot deny that there is a definite, steady increase taking place in radioactive contamination by strontium 90 in plants, milk and certain vegetables, and would it not be at least advisable that, even privately, he should circularise in every quarter the medical officers of health so that these can be certain in their own minds of this trend?

The Prime Minister: I do not think it is anything of this character. It would be better to await the report, which will be published in a month or two.

NUCLEAR TESTS

Mr. Beswick: asked the Prime Minister whether the advice given to him about the insignificance of genetic effects due to fall-out from nuclear explosions relates to the insignificant effect upon any one individual or the insignificant number of individuals affected.

The Prime Minister: The Medical Research Council stated in its report on "The Hazards to Man of Nuclear and Allied Radiations" that the genetic effects of radiation are essentially problems con-

cerning the future welfare of the population as a whole. The total amount of radiation received by the population, to which fall-out contributes only a very small fraction, is the genetically significant factor and not the amount received by any one individual except in as much as the latter contributes to the whole.

Mr. Beswick: But does the Prime Minister not agree that the use of the term "insignificant" in relation to genetic hazards is misleading—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—and that at least two signatories to the Report of the Medical Research Council objected to the term "insignificant" in so far as it was intended to convey that the number of children who will be born deformed is limited, and is insignificant as a proportion of the total number of children?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. I think the word "insignificant" is well justified by the facts, which are these: the Gonad dose of radiation attributable to the fallout from nuclear weapon explosions is less than 1 per cent. of the natural background radiation. That is less than 1 per cent. of what we cannot avoid being subject to by being born and living on this earth. It is interesting also to note that medical diagnostic radiology is at least 22 per cent. of the natural background radiation per annum.

Hon. Members: Withdraw.

Mr. Awbery: Is the Minister aware that to call these V-bombs clean bombs is hypocritical, and that a bomb which will kill thousands of people and will cause children to be born deformed is not only dirty but devilishly dirty?

The Prime Minister: I was trying to defend by statistical information the use of the word "insignificant" in connection with the addition made to the total radiation of the world by this particular test explosion. When, as I say, the fallout from all the explosions made by all the countries concerned—of which ours is, of course, a tiny fraction—amounts to only one per cent. of what we cannot help receiving anyway by being alive, I think I am entitled to use the word "insignificant".

Mr. Osborne: Is it not a pity that hon. Gentlemen opposite, who seem so frightened of this, should take such great pains to frighten other people outside on such insignificant evidence?

Mr. Beswick: While considering this matter, will the Prime Minister look at the evidence given by Mr. Warren Weaver, Chairman of the United States Committee on the Genetic Effects of Radiation, in which he dealt with this precise point? Mr. Weaver said that 6,000 additional children will be borne deformed to the present generation which, he said, is an insignificant proportion of the total births, but he went on to add, "Six thousand is a lot of babies", and would not the Prime Minister agree with that?

The Prime Minister: I have not read that report, and I will certainly look it up. If those figures are correct—my own are certainly correct—and one per cent. is the only addition to the natural amount of radiation, I think I am still entitled to say that is insignificant.

Mr. Beswick: asked the Prime Minister if he will give an assurance that at the Summit Conference he will not insist that a properly supervised agreement on the suspension of nuclear tests will be made contingent upon other agreements.

The Prime Minister: I have nothing to add to the statement I made to the House on 1st April, and to what I said in reply to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Zilliacus) on 29th April.

Mr. Beswick: Is the conclusion which the House is to draw from that, therefore, that if we can get a cast-iron agreement for the suspension of tests under proper inspection the Prime Minister will not agree to it unless it is tied to some other agreement?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. I do not think any of these deductions should be drawn. What I am hoping to do is to get a summit meeting arranged as rapidly as we can. When we get that, we will negotiate on all these matters.

Mr. Bevan: Has the right hon. Gentleman set his mind against the possibility of a suspension of nuclear tests as a separate issue, with control posts mutually agreed, even if agreement cannot be found upon other questions?

The Prime Minister: All these questions will certainly be matters of negotiation by such a meeting, but I would

certainly not wish to tie my hands before entering such a meeting by any prior statements.

Mr. Bevan: In view of the fact that the Russians have suspended tests, would it not be desirable if the right hon. Gentleman did not close his mind to what he himself has said on several occasions in the House of Commons, that if even some modest approach can be made to a summit solution of these difficulties, he will be in favour of it?

The Prime Minister: Of course I do not wish to close my mind, but I do not wish to tie my hands; nor, if I may be permitted to use the right hon. Gentleman's own words, would I wish to go naked into the conference.

SHIPPING INDUSTRY

Mr. Peyton: asked the Prime Minister if he will establish, under the chairmanship of a Cabinet Minister, a committee consisting of representatives of the Treasury, the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation, the Admiralty and the shipping industry, to consider the problems now confronting British shipping, with particular reference to flags of convenience.

The Prime Minister: I do not think any new machinery is required. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport is in close touch with the General Council of British Shipping. There are already arrangements for consideration between Departments of the problems confronting the British shipping industry and for consultation as necessary with the General Council of British Shipping. I am satisfied that these arrangements are adequate, although the problems are complex.

Mr. Peyton: May I ask my right hon. Friend if he will reconsider this matter in the light of the undoubted fact that no country in the world is so deeply dependent upon its merchant shipping, both commercially and strategically, as we are? Will he, in view of the tremendous development of the flags of convenience problem, consider whether it would not be wise to set up such a committee as is suggested in this Question, which I am sure would be very welcome to the industry?

The Prime Minister: I hope my hon. Friend will not misunderstand the character of my reply. It has never been the practice, and I would not like to deviate from it, to refer to any Committee of Ministers in this House or in any public statement, the only exception from long tradition being the Defence Committee of the Cabinet. Because, therefore, I do not wish to make a precise answer to the form of this Question, it does not mean that Ministers do not discuss this problem. It has never been our practice, and I would not like to deviate from what is a very old-standing rule, that no reference is ever made to a Committee of Ministers.

Mr. Shinwell: As there may be very sound reasons why the right hon. Gentleman should not create such a committee, could he arrange, perhaps through an inspired Question, to enable the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation to make a statement on the Government's view about the future position of the shipping industry?

The Prime Minister: On this question of flags of convenience and other similar matters, discussions are going on between my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport and the General Council. The General Council has not yet put forward to us its specific proposals. We understand that the Council is considering these proposals and as soon as we have them, we will be very happy to discuss them.

DISARMAMENT (CONVENTIONAL ARMS)

Captain Pilkington: asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of his proposal to Mr. Khrushchev that experts should now be appointed to work out an agreed system of inspection and control of hydrogen bomb tests, he will suggest to Mr. Khrushchev that the same system should be extended to conventional arms as well.

The Prime Minister: My right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary proposed in the Disarmament Sub-Committee last July that experts should meet for this purpose as well as to study the technical details of other disarmament measures. I repeated this proposal in my letter of 16th January to Mr. Bulganin. The Soviet Government have not

responded. Nevertheless, our proposal still stands.

Captain Pilkington: Would my right hon. Friend agree that if Russia were sincere in these matters she would stop her cold war of subversion? Would he also agree that his constant questioners on this subject on the other side of the House would be better employed using their influence with Russia, if they have any?

The Prime Minister: If they would do that, it would be very agreeable.

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: Can the Prime Minister say why, last year, we withdrew the detailed proposals for the inspection of conventional armaments which we had pressed upon the Russians for twelve years and left ourselves in the extraordinary position that the Russians were proposing much more conventional disarmament and much more inspection than we were?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. That is a great travesty of the story of last year. The right hon. Gentleman is one of those men who always thinks his own country wrong.

Hon. Members: Withdraw.

Mr. Gaitskell: While we all realise the strain under which the Prime Minister is working, does he realise that discourteous statements of that kind to an authority on the subject of disarmament such as my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South (Mr. P. Noel-Baker) will impress nobody.

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir but I would also remind the right hon. Gentleman that the proposals put up by the—[HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."] I would remind the right hon. Gentleman——

Hon. Members: Withdraw.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Prime Minister has been asked a question by the Leader of the Opposition. He is entitled to answer it and the House should listen.

The Prime Minister: I remind the right hon. Gentleman that the proposals put up by the Western Powers in the Disarmament Conference on behalf of Canada, France and the United States and Great Britain were carried by an overwhelming majority in the Assembly of the United Nations.

Mr. Noel-Baker: If I put down a Question to the Prime Minister, will he tell the House what was in the Russian proposals of 18th March and the Western proposals of 29th August?

The Prime Minister: Of course, I will answer the Question when it is put down, but I will answer it in its proper perspective.

MERCHANT SHIPPING (NUCLEAR PROPULSION)

Mr. Chetwynd: asked the Prime Minister what progress is being made with the prototype reactor for nuclear-powered merchant shipping.

The Prime Minister: No reactor is being developed at present specifically for propulsion of merchant shipping. The Atomic Energy Authority is working on a land-based advanced gas-cooled reactor which, while not specifically designed for use in merchant ships, is expected to yield information which will be of value to the Authority and the Admiralty in developing an economic propulsion unit. Surveys of other reactor systems which might be suitable for marine application are continuing.

Mr. Chetwynd: Are we not in danger of falling behind the United States in the development of atomic-powered merchant shipping? Ought we not to give far more priority to this project than we seem to be doing?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. Very good work indeed is going on. If the hon. Member would wish it, I would be very happy to explain to him personally some of this scientific development, which is of a remarkable character.

Mr. G. R. Howard: In view of what my hon. Friend the Civil Lord of the Admiralty said during the Navy Estimates debate and in view of the enormous importance of this matter to our marine engineering industry, will my right hon. Friend consider in the near future publishing a statement of how far the Government have got with this problem?

The Prime Minister: I will certainly consider that, although, as I am sure my hon. Friend would feel, there are some-

times disadvantages in publishing too prematurely the precise stage of our advance.

AIRCRAFT (NUCLEAR WEAPONS)

Mrs. Castle: asked the Prime Minister what arrangements he has made to be in constant radio communication with the President of the United States of America, in view of the fact that our ally is in a state of instant readiness for war.

The Prime Minister: I have nothing to add to the reply which I gave to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Stonehouse) on 15th April.

Mrs. Castle: Is the Prime Minister aware that, under the "instant alert" system in the United States, the President has to be in constant contact with the Strategic Air Command Headquarters at Omaha and we have been assured that, even when he is playing golf, Mr. Eisenhower is in constant contact by means of a portable radio? Is it not important—[Interruption.] May I have your protection, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The House should listen to the question in silence.

Mrs. Castle: Is it not important that if the United States is going to war, we should be consulted? In view of that, will the Prime Minister arrange to carry a portable radio set around with him everywhere, including in this House?

The Prime Minister: The fact that our allies are in a state of readiness is, I would have thought, a source of satisfaction. I am sure that they will carry out their obligations, made to Mr. Attlee's Government, repeated to the Government of my right hon. Friend the Member for Woodford (Sir W. Churchill) and since renewed to me, both in the spirit and in the letter.

Sir A. V. Harvey: On a point of order. May we have your guidance, Mr. Speaker? To what extent is an hon. Member allowed to criticise the head of a foreign friendly Power?

Mr. Speaker: From what I could hear of the hon. Lady's question, the only criticism I heard of the eminent gentleman was that he played golf. I cannot


myself count that as a derogatory expression.

Mrs. Castle: I was not criticising the President of the United States. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I was criticising the Prime Minister for not arranging to be in the same contact with the problem.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

Rabbit Clearance Societies

Mr. Hurd: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress is being made in the formation of rabbit clearance societies to qualify for the £ for £ grants offered by his Department; and which counties have so far registered such societies.

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John Hare): Three societies, one in Carmarthenshire and two in Kent, have already been registered, and plans to form societies are well advanced in a number of other counties in England and Wales. The initial response to the recent offer of grants has been encouraging in many areas: but I would urge occupiers in all parts of the country to take advantage of these grants and form societies over the next few months so that they are ready to operate in good time for next winter's anti-rabbit campaign.

Mr. Hurd: That seems a satisfactory start. May we take it from what my right hon. Friend has said that both the Country Landowners' Association and the National Farmers' Union are doing their best to facilitate the formation of these societies?

Mr. Hare: I have no reason to assume that they are not giving the fullest cooperation to the schemes that my Ministry is putting forward.

Food Depot, Woodlesford

Mr. A. Roberts: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the amount and value of food condemned at his Department's food depot situated at Patrick Green, Woodlesford, near Leeds, during the past 12 months.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. J. B. Godber): This depot is

used as a clearing house for the routine inspection of old stock. Condemnations have been negligible but my right hon. Friend must adhere to the custom of refusing to give details about our strategic food reserves.

Mr. Roberts: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that there is quite a lot of indignation owing to the wastage of food in that depot? Is it at all possible to prevent such wastage, as I am sure that this House will agree that, when good food goes into a depot, it should be properly attended to, so as to avoid the waste which the Joint Parliamentary Secretary has admitted?

Mr. Godber: I only wish I could give the figures. If I could, people would realise what a small percentage it is. I realise that there is some, of course, but we seek to avoid it as much as we can. I can certainly give the House the assurance that it is a very small figure indeed.

Agricultural Workers (Earnings)

Mr. Osborne: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what were the average weekly earnings of agricultural workers for the years 1951 and 1957, respectively, and for men, women and young persons, separately.

Mr. Godber: The latest available figures relate to the twelve months ending 30th September, 1957. The estimated average weekly earnings of hired whole-time regular workers in England and Wales in this period are men, £8 19s. 8d., women, £6 5s. 2d., and youths and girls, £5 3s. 10d. The corresponding figures for the twelve months ending 30th September,1951,are,respectively, £5 19s. 4d., £4 6s. and £3 15s. 7d.

Mr. T. Williams: Now that the hon. Gentleman has given the actual money received by agricultural workers, men, women and children, will he tell the House how much each agricultural worker earns?

Mr. Godber: He earns every penny he gets.

Fertilisers (Municipal Waste and Sewage Sludge)

Mrs. Slater: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what experiments have been made, and with what results, on the use of compost from


combining municipal waste and sewage sludge as a fertiliser.

Mr. Godber: Experiments carried out during the war and after at Rothamsted and elsewhere showed that this compost provides a useful organic manure. My Department advocates its use where it is available and suitable.

Mrs. Slater: While thanking the hon. Gentleman for his interest in this question, may I ask him if it would be possible for him to consult the Minister of Health and the Minister of Housing and Local Government to see how far local authorities should be encouraged to extend this service so that it might be used by agriculturists?

Mr. Godber: This is a matter primarily for the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, but officers of the National Agricultural Advisory Service gladly give any help they can in that respect.

Law of the Sea (Conference)

Mr. Wall: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will now make a further statement on the proceedings of the Geneva Conference on the Law of the Sea and as to how the decisions taken will affect the British fishing industry.

Mr. John Hare: The matter of primary concern is that the Geneva Conference was unable to reach a decision by the necessary majority on the question of the territorial sea. As stated by my right hon. and gallant Friend the Minister of State for Foreign Affairs on 28th April, the Government will do everything possible in this situation to safeguard the interests of the British deep-sea fishing industry.
The Conference reached decisions on several other matters affecting the fishing industry. In particular, agreement was reached upon a code of law governing fisheries conservation, representing a balance between the interests of coastal States and those with deep-sea fishing interests; and upon another covering the continental shelf under which the waters above the shelf outside the territorial sea are recognised as being high seas in which there is freedom to fish.
The Conference decided that those matters on which agreement was reached should be incorporated in Conventions

which will be open to ratification by Governments.

Mr. Wall: While thanking my hon. Friend for that comprehensive reply and his interest in the fishing industry, may I ask him whether instructions cannot be given to the fishery protection squadron to safeguard our fishing vessels when fishing within legal limits?

Mr. Hare: As I have told my hon. Friend, Her Majesty's Government are doing all they can to protect our fishing industry at this moment.

Mr. Hoy: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, since the Conference ended, it has been reported that Iceland proposes to take unilateral action, and could he state what action he intends to take to preserve the rights of the British trawling fleet?

Mr. Hare: That is a purely hypothetical question. As my right hon. and gallant Friend the Minister of State for Foreign Affairs said the other day, we have made our position quite clear in this matter.

Lady Tweedsmuir: Does that mean that there will be no attempt to reopen the Conference? What safeguard is there against countries such as Iceland extending their fishing grounds for their own exclusive use?

Mr. Hare: In reply to the first part of my hon. Friend's Question, it was decided at the end of the Conference to suggest that further consideration could be given by the United Nations to try to resolve the questions on which there was no agreement. In reply to the second part, Her Majesty's Government, as I have said, are doing all they can to safeguard the interests of the British fishing industry.

Sheep Shearing

Mr. Kershaw: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he is taking to make available to sheep farmers the knowledge of the Bowen technique in sheep shearing developed in New Zealand.

Mr. Godber: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply which my right hon. Friend gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Sir A. Bossom) on 25th April.

Mr. Kershaw: Is my hon. Friend aware that I am not aware of the terms of that


reply? Is he further aware that a firm in my constituency has prepared an instructional film and is running a course in the Bowen technique all over the country this summer? If this very helpful bit of private enterprise needs any help from the Government, will he see that it gets it?

Mr. Godber: I was not aware that my hon. Friend was not aware of the previous reply, but I assure him that the Wool Marketing Board, which is the body concerned, is doing what it can about publicity, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for calling my attention to this matter.

Potatoes

Mr. Willey: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what have been the unit subsidies, expressed per 7 lb., on potatoes for 1955–56, 1956–57 and 1957–58, respectively.

Mr. Godber: The estimated rates of subsidy per 7 lb. of second early and main crop potatoes used for human consumption from holdings of more than one acre are 0·2d. for the 1955 crop and 2·7d. for the 1956 crop. The comparable figure for the 1957 crop is forecast at 0·1d. These rates include allowances made to the Potato Marketing Board for administrative expenses in operating the guarantee arrangements in Great Britain.

Mr. Willey: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what were the average growers' returns per acre for potatoes for 1955–56, 1956–57 and 1957–58, respectively.

Mr. Godber: The average grower's return per acre for potatoes is estimated at £115 for the 1955 crop and £89 for the 1956 crop. The forecast for the 1957 crop is £121 per acre.

Mr. Willey: Can the Joint Parliamentary Secretary say whether his right hon. Friend is still considering the system of price support for potatoes? If he is, can he say when he is likely to come to a conclusion upon it?

Mr. Godber: Yes, Sir; my right hon. Friend is considering it. I think reference was made to it in the White Paper on the Price Review this year, and consultations are now going on. I could not give any

undertaking about when a decision will be announced.

Mr. Willey: As this matter has been under review for a considerable time, will the Joint Parliamentary Secretary impress upon his right hon. Friend that if he can reach an early decision, he ought to do so?

Mr. Godber: I will certainly draw the attention of my right hon. Friend to the remarks which the hon. Gentleman has made. We hope to be in a position to announce something by the end of July.

Smallholdings and Allotments

Mr. Willey: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he has now considered the advice of the Smallholders Advisory Council; and if he will make a statement on the relationship between smallholdings and allotments.

Mr. John Hare: The Smallholdings Advisory Council has considered whether larger allotments might be provided in rural areas for farm workers anxious eventually to become farmers on their own account. Such allotments and part-time smallholdings are, in certain areas, an established part of the social structure and provide a real opportunity of advancement for farm workers. I agree with the Council's view, however, that there is no general case for providing more part-time holdings.

Foot-and-Mouth Disease

Mr. Baldwin: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps are taken to see that all hay and straw used in packing imported merchandise is destroyed at the port of entry in order to comply with the regulations imposed under the Foot and Mouth Disease (Packing Materials) Orders, 1925.

Mr. Godber: Importers are not obliged to destroy packing materials at the ports. The Foot and Mouth Disease (Packing Materials) Orders, 1925 and 1926, require hay or straw which has been used for packing purposes to be destroyed if it is not so used again or returned in a crate or box to the sender for further use as packing. Local authorities acting under the Diseases of Animals Acts, enforce the Orders.

Mr. Baldwin: Can my right hon. Friend say what protection this is against the importation of foot-and-mouth disease? Is he aware that, if the hay and straw goes from the port, there is no possible chance of stopping it being used, thrown into pig sties, or whatever it may be, and spreading the disease? Will he take steps to see that this is stopped?

Mr. Godber: Frankly, I do not think that this is one of the sources from which this disease comes. As far as I am aware, no case has been traced to packing materials of this kind, certainly within the last eighteen years. I do not think it is a real source of danger.

Dried Peas

Mr. Baldwin: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the acreage of dried peas grown for canning before the war; what was the acreage for 1957; and what was the cost of imported dried peas in 1957.

Mr. Godber: Acreage figures for dried peas grown for canning are not available. The estimated total acreage of peas sown for harvesting dry averaged 19,200 acres in the three years 1937 to 1939 and in 1957 was about 78,400 acres. The c.i.f. value of all imported dried peas in 1957 was £3,918,000.

Mr. Baldwin: Does not my hon. Friend think that this is a lot of money to spend upon a commodity which can be well grown in this country? Would it not be wise to stop, by quota or otherwise, the importation of food which can be so well grown in Great Britain?

Mr. Godber: We should not lose sight of the fact that there is a very substantial tariff on peas, amounting to £7 10s. a ton on peas up to a value of £75 a ton. As the price is now well below that, it is a fairly substantial protection.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Gaitskell: May I ask the Lord Privy Seal whether he will state the business for next week?

The Secretary of State for the Home Department and Lord Privy Seal (Mr. R. A. Butler): Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:

MONDAY, 5TH MAY, TUESDAY, 6TH MAY, and WEDNESDAY, 7TH MAY Report stage of the Local Government Bill.
At the end of business on Tuesday, it is proposed to ask the House to consider the Motion relating to the International Organisations (Immunities and Privileges of the Council of Europe) Order, and, at the end of business on Wednesday, the Motions to approve the Draft Tuberculosis (Extension of Payments Period) Order, and a similar Order for Scotland; and the Imported Livestock Order.
THURSDAY, 8TH MAY—Second Reading of the Finance Bill.
FRIDAY, 9TH MAY—Consideration of Private Members' Motions.

Mr. Gaitskell: Can the right hon. Gentleman give us an assurance that the Minister of Labour will keep the House fully informed on the bus dispute? In particular, will he arrange for his right hon. Friend to make a statement tomorrow, Friday, because that is the last possible Parliamentary time before the strike begins—if it is to begin?

Mr. Butler: I think that the whole House will understand the importance of the right hon. Gentleman's request. I shall certainly make a point of discussing it with my right hon. Friend immediately. I could not give an absolute assurance about tomorrow, but I will take note of the right hon. Gentleman's request.

Mr. W. Yates: Has my right hon. Friend seen the Motion on the Order Paper about an interim Constitution for Cyprus?

[That this House claims that the future status of the Island of Cyprus is the sole responsibility of Her Majesty's Government and the Cypriot people, and now calls upon Her Majesty's Government to present to the Secretary-General of the United Nations their proposals for the immediate self-government of the island under British and United Nations protection for minority rights, and guarantee of eventual self determination, and also urges Her Majesty's Government to enlist the support of the Secretary-General to secure the early implementation of these proposals, with the help and advice of Archbishop Makarios and the Mufti of Cyprus.]

Do the Government intend to give time for a debate on this matter before the Whitsun Recess? Is my right hon. Friend aware that some hon. Members feel that the Governor of Cyprus himself ought to be allowed to try to find a method of arriving at a peaceful solution, and that the Foreign Secretary should revert to looking after the interests of British subjects expelled from Egypt after the Suez action?

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member is going beyond the terms of his question on business in introducing a matter of politics.

Mr. Butler: In answer to the first part of my hon. Friend's question, a request was made for a statement about Cyprus before Whitsun——

Mr. Gaitskell: A debate.

Mr. Butler: The right hon. Gentleman says that it was for a debate. My hon. Friend has also made a request for a debate. I cannot guarantee to find time for a debate, but we are attempting to meet the request which has been made for a statement. I cannot go further than that today.

Mr. Beswick: Can the Lord Privy Seal say whether the Government are prepared to expose to the full scrutiny of public debate their refusal to agree to the suspension of nuclear weapons tests? Will he set aside a day for that purpose?

Mr. Butler: We are always ready to have any of our policies scrutinised in debate, and they usually emerge triumphant; but I cannot give the assurance that the hon. Member desires.

Mr. Grant-Ferris: Has my right hon. Friend considered giving time to debate

the Report of the Select Committee on Obscene Publications?

Mr. Butler: We have enough trouble without that at the moment. I realise that the Report was made available on Thursday, 27th March, but I shall simply have to take note of my hon. Friend's request. We will have to study the Report.

Mr. Stonehouse: Has the Leader of the House seen the Motion on the Order Paper, signed by about 100 of my right hon. and hon. Friends, relating to the danger of arming Western Germany with tactical atomic arms
[That this House, recognising the widespread opposition both in this country and in the Federal Republic of Germany to the arming of the Bundeswehr with nuclear weapons, as shown by the statements of both the Social Democratic and the Free Democratic Parties, believes that Her Majesty's Government should oppose this proposal in the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation on the grounds that the arming of West German forces with nuclear weapons will make it more difficult to secure the disengagement of forces and the nuclear free zone in Central Europe on which the relaxation of tension between East and West will depend.]
If so, when does he expect to find time for a debate on foreign affairs, so that this matter can be discussed?

Mr. Butler: We had better make progress with the business that we propose for next week. I have the Motion before me. The matter to which it refers, together with many others of importance, will certainly be suitable for discussion at some time.

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY

[13TH ALLOTTED DAY]

Considered in Committee.

[Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]

Orders of the Day — CIVIL ESTIMATES AND ESTIMATES FOR REVENUE DEPARTMENTS, 1958–59.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a further sum, not exceeding £20, be granted to Her Majesty, towards defraying the charges for the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1959, for the following services connected with the Building of Houses by Local Authorities, namely:—


Civil Estimates, 1958–59



£


Class V, Vote 1 (Ministry of Housing and Local Government)
10


Class V, Vote 2 (Housing, England and Wales)
10


Total
£20

HOUSING (LOCAL AUTHORITY BUILDING)

3.36 p.m.

Mr. G. R. Mitchison: We last discussed this matter on 11th November last year. On that occasion, the Minister announced that he intended to reduce the scale of council house building to 100,000 houses a year by 1959–60. That he described as a very large house building programme. On the same day he issued to local authorities Circular 54/57 on this matter. I will not trouble the Committee with the whole of the circular. It is headed, "Restriction of Capital Investment", it refers, in paragraph 4, to some necessary curtailment of expenditure on the building of new houses and then, at the end of the paragraph, says:
In its anti-inflationary policy the Government will proceed on the basis that total expenditure on the building of new houses by authorities will progressively slow dawn in such a manner that in the financial year 1959–60 it will not exceed 80 per cent. of the current level of expenditure.
The paragraph then refers to various administrative arrangements for that purpose, after which paragraph 6 begins, cheerfully:
Some authorities may not find it essential to continue building at all but most no doubt will feel it right to do so, if in varying degrees, on a reduced scale.

It does, however, preserve, in substance, the necessity for what the Government continually call their slum clearance campaign.
At that time the rate of council house building was already falling. It had fallen from about 143,000 a year in the first half of 1957 to about 133,000 in the second half. The first two months of this year—which are the only months for which we yet have figures—show a further and a very sharp fall, to a rate of just over 100,000 a year. Therefore, the right hon. Gentleman is, indeed, succeeding in reducing the number of houses built to 100,000 a year, and it looks at present as if it were going to be done sooner rather than later.
The question that I invite the Committee to consider today is whether a reduction on that scale and at that pace is right, consonant with the duties of the Government towards housing, and whether it enables local authorities to do their job of providing houses in the towns.
I agree that this problem, like many other housing problems has a different incidence in different parts of the country. I propose to take it quite generally for the moment. I will take the figure of 100,000 houses a year, or slightly more, and I will turn, first, to the slum clearance that is proceeding at the rate of 40,000 houses a year. The new towns are proceeding at about 11,000 a year and, so far as I can judge, the subsidised one-bedroom houses mostly for old people are proceeding at the rate of 23,000 a year. I think that those figures are roughly right. They leave only 26,000 houses a year for general needs all over the country.
Slum clearance is a bit of the Government's programme which has shown the most lamentable and disappointing result. In November, 1955, local authorities were required to furnish particulars of what they could do by way of slum clearance in the next five years. At that time, there were more than 800,000 slum houses in England and Wales. The local authorities expected to clear them off at the rate of 71,000 a year, or more than 350,000 in five years. The next stage was that, in that same month, the then Minister of Housing and Local Government, now the Minister of Defence, cut that figure down to 60,000 a year.
We come to performance. In 1955, there were about 25,000 houses cleared; in 1956, the figure was just under 35,000; and in 1957 about 40,000. It is obvious that at that rate it will take up to twenty years to clear the slum houses as they were towards the end of 1955. These houses increase in number year by year because other houses get much worse, and, finally, reach the appallingly low standard of a slum house, unfit to live in and unfit for repair at any reasonable cost.
Look at the matter in another way. If the estimate, or promise—it was held out as a promise to people living in slum houses—is to be made good during the next three years those slum houses will have to be pulled down, and other houses built in their places, at the rate of 75,000 a year. On the figures I have given it is obvious that nothing will be left over for general-need housing.
We had a long debate recently on new towns, so I will not deal with them at any length. The broad position is that all the development corporations are saying that they are being cramped, particularly by the high rates of interest which are part of Government policy. They are finding it impossible to get on with their job of building the new towns, and their housing programmes are falling back. We find that in all the corporation reports. It is obvious that the figure of 11,000 is not enough.
When the predecessor of the right hon. Gentleman, the present Minister of Defence, was talking on 17th November, 1955, the figure he had in mind for new towns and overspill together was about 20,000 a year. The overspill contribution is so small that I propose to neglect it for these purposes. One can see the reason. The Government have always professed an intention that overspill should be used to the full, but attempts to use it get little or no encouragement from the Government. Perhaps I might again take my own constituency. We were approaching an arrangement about overspill, but the Government came down upon it and the result is that nothing has been done. If the new towns are to fulfil the estimate, the very small figure of 26,000 or thereabouts, representing housing for general needs, will be further reduced. That is the present position.
What conclusion are we to draw from it? I ought to deal first with the one-bedroom houses. We are entirely in favour of making good this shortage—it was a shortage—but the figures are difficult to reach. No one would suggest that it is wrong that the work should be done, and I do not think that we have enough evidence yet to show that it is not proceeding reasonably speedily.
What conclusions are we now to draw about general-need housing? With the Government's promise or programme about slum clearance not proceeding at anything like the rate at which the local authorities expected to carry it out, we can only conclude that it will either not be carried out at all, or that it will take practically the whole allocation of houses.
What is the result of all this for the average municipal council? Figures are extraordinarily difficult to come by, but I make the present position to be something like this: the really large authorities, like the London County Council, and the really big towns, are continuing to a limited extent with general-need house building in addition to slum clearance, but it is not much and it is falling rapidly. In other areas—and, again, I come back to my own constituency and that part of the country, because what is happening there is similar to what is happening under other councils who have not the rate resources of the larger places—councils are finding themselves obliged to confine their building to slum clearance and a little bit of other subsidised building like the one-bedroom house.
This is the result of the right hon. Gentleman's policy. Perhaps it is what he intended, but if anybody considers it satisfactory, let him look for a moment at the large numbers of people who, on this showing, will not gel a council house for an indefinite period. Let me remind the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends that when we were dealing with this matter of housing subsidies we pointed out to the Government the difficulty of giving an exclusive preference to slum clearance, because of the cases where housing difficulties were not related to the nature of the building. The most frequent of these is overcrowding, which is largely responsible for


what little general-need housing is going on in the larger towns.
People in the smaller places, Kettering for example, will have to wait indefinitely, and they know it. Housing lists are still kept and people still renew their applications at intervals, but there are no houses. Meanwhile, in the towns, the stock of houses is gradually deteriorating, as it is bound to do. If there are changes in industry or movements of population, overcrowding may become worse. That deterioration is bound to go on in any country, but it goes on unprovided for here because of the Government's attitude to the matter.
I shall not go through the history of place after place. I have no doubt that some of my hon. Friends will do it. I take one set of examples only. On the last occasion when the right hon. Gentleman was the first Minister to be questioned on a Tuesday, my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, East (Mr. Moody) asked him how many local authorities in County Durham had
decided to abandon house building for the present; how many authorities have indicated they will concentrate on slum clearance; and what is the number who are slowing down their house building programme.
The Minister replied:
Of the 40 local authorities in County Durham. 35 have been in touch with me on the matters raised in Circular 54/57… I understand that four do not intend to place any houses in contract for the time being. The remainder intend that the houses they are placing in contract shall be used primarily for slum clearance and the housing of old people."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 1st April, 1958; Vol. 585 c. 1006.]
That is to say, two forms of subsidised house building, and not for general need. That is just one county in England, but it must be within the knowledge of any hon. Member who sits for any constituency that County Durham has a serious general housing need, and so have the majority of other places.
Now I turn to one other side of this matter. It is, of course, perfectly true that in all these housing questions the limiting factor is bound to be the amount of building labour available. What are the facts about that? The present position is that about 5 per cent. of the building and contracting force are unemployed. There are employed at the

moment 1,323,000 and 69,000 unemployed. Taking building alone, leaving out contracting, the figure is 49,000. That figure will probably bring it to the same sort of proportion as for the total of people employed in the whole trade, and both figures have risen sharply during the past year. A year ago the one figure was 9,000 less and the other 13,000 less.
It is entirely useless and pointless for the Government to say, "This cannot be done." When we come to the question whether this really is an effective anti-inflationary measure or simply another example of the Government's blindness to the needs of the people we must bear in mind that the result of this considerable and increasing unemployment is the waste of that national resource. To that extent there is a stagnation of production, and it is not the only example.
What else will the Government's answer be? There is the old answer that the private contractor can do it. Private house building has been staying roughly steady for the past three years. It has been a little below the total of council house building. It is not without significance that in the same two months, the first two months of this year, when council house building showed a sharp fall, so, too, did private housebuilding.
Lest anybody should suppose that I am neglecting the seasonal factor, he will find that it shows a sharp fall by relation to the same months in the preceding year. There is no doubt that the engine of restriction that the Government set under way is gathering speed, and having results which are more rapid and considerable, I believe, than even this Government intended when they issued that circular.
It is in these circumstances that we have to consider generally whether the right hon. Gentleman is doing his duty as the Minister of Housing. To put the matter at the very lowest, on the question of need, and the figures I have given, what is abundantly clear is that slums will not be cleared at the sort of rate everyone, including the local authorities, hoped for and expected in November, 1955. It is abundantly clear that the new towns are cramped and that the job of the development corporations cannot be done properly. It is not abundantly clear that anything is wrong with the one-bedroom


building. That is the sole exception I make.
It is quite clear that the amount left over for general-needs housing is much, much too small, and, moreover, that the effect of it is that except in large areas, where there is a high rateable value and those kinds of somewhat exceptional cases, ordinary council house building for general need, to reiterate a phrase I have used before, is grinding to a standstill; only I am not certain that it is grinding. I am not certain that it has not reached a standstill in most places. Certainly, it is perilously near it.
I would ask the Committee to remember that it is not only a question of overcrowding, it is not only a question of cases in which there is tuberculosis in the household and in which there clearly ought to be new housing. We all know of such cases. It is not only a question of hardship. It is also a question of young people who are, in the ordinary course of things, getting married, wanting to start a family, and looking round for a house, and turning to the right hon. Gentleman and the Government for some help in the matter.
It is of scant use to tell them they should buy a house. They have not the money. They cannot even start the business of buying. They ought not to be asked, in the interests of a property-owning democracy, if that is what the party opposite wants, to put round their necks the millstone of a mortgage entered into over a long period at a high rate of interest. Those people are just not getting housed. These kinds of things, not immediately, for they take time——

Mr. A. E. Hunter: Would my hon. and learned Friend agree that many people wanting loans cannot get them from the building societies? They will not lend the money.

Mr. Mitchison: That is one of the difficulties, I absolutely agree. The trouble about this matter is that there is so much in it, there are so many aspects of it, that it would take an inordinate time to try to deal with them all.
The broad picture is absolutely clear; people are not getting housed. The ones who can afford to buy houses for themselves are much better off. The ones who have to go to a building society or proceed under the Small Dwellings

Acquisition Acts—whose provisions have largely been stopped—are in difficulties.
There remains the group of people for whom council housing surely ought to be particularly intended, the young people marrying, starting a family, with few resources of their own, who have always looked to council housing, within recent years, at any rate, for starting a home of their own. They are not getting it.
I repeat that these things work slowly. It is only in the beginning of 1958 that we feel the full effects of a step which started in November, 1955. If we let this go on and pay no attention to what is happening, then things will get worse and worse, and for that the Minister and the Conservative Party will be responsible. I suggest that this is the time that they should reconsider what they attempted to do in November, 1955, in the light of the results and of the general position in the country.
I shall not talk much about inflation and anti-inflation. I simply say that there is a crying and over-riding need for more houses to let, built by councils, and that that need is not being met, and it will not be met if the Government remain in power any longer. Moreover, if nothing is done now, the fruits of what the Government are doing and are not doing will carry on for a year or two, and even when the country has expressed its opinion on them at the polling booths the results will still continue and we shall have to carry the burden.
We are coming to council elections, and I want to say a word or two about the position of councils in this matter. Let us take County Durham, or Kettering, or any of these places. People will say to the council, "Why do you not build more council houses?". The council may be quite willing to build, but they require, and should have, some help, as they have always had help in the matter. The council will, once again, be used as the Government's stalking horse to cover the deficiencies of their own policies.
I want to mention one other matter, and that quite shortly. I do it because it is a pity that what seems to have been a mistake by the Minister has to some extent passed into circulation. I refer to the question of council house rents. In the debate on 11th November.
1957, the right hon. Gentleman said that it might surprise me
to know that last year the average rent for a three-bedroom council house in a county borough was as low as 14s. 1d."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th November, 1957; Vol. 577, c. 641.]
It did surprise me, and I did not know where the figure had come from. I think that I have now discovered the source. Shortly afterwards, there appeared the housing statistics of the Institute of Municipal Treasurers. If hon. Members turn to the Summing up for county boroughs on this exact point they will find some figures called "averages", and among them is the figure of 14s. 1d. But it is the average of the lowest ranges. It happens to be the average in Wigan, and that does not matter very much. The other figure is 31s. 1d. The figure of 14s. 1d. was a complete mistake. It did surprise me, but it no longer surprises me because I now know what is the truth of the matter.
When we take these figures, I earnestly hope that hon. Members opposite will not trot out the old story, "Council houses are wicked things because you ought never to subsidise housing, and, if you do subsidise, then some people will be subsidised who already have enough money". There is no way out of that, because housing in the hands of councils is not an instrument for making profit and is not just an instrument for relieving the needy and the distressed. It is an instrument for carrying out what we must recognise to be a social service. As I see it, the Government of the day take responsibility for it for that reason.
I say that in this social service there is at present an approaching breakdown over a very large field. I therefore invite the Committee to come to the conclusion that in this respect, unless we get an effective promise of immediate repentance, the right hon. Gentleman and his supporters have not done their job.

4.6 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. J. R. Bevins): I have listened, as I always do, with very great care and attention to what the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) has said, and I must say that the burden of his speech rather surprised me. He spoke almost as though the Government

had set out deliberately and for its own sake to emasculate the housing problem of the country. I think that I can dissipate that impression in two very short sentences. Whereas in the first six postwar years 901,000 new houses were built in England and Wales, the following six years saw the building of nearly 1 million new houses. A Conservative Government who have built two houses for every one built at the time of the Labour Government certainly do not cut the housing programme for its own sake. In fact, the reduction in house building announced by my right hon. Friend in November makes a contribution to price stability and national solvency.

Mr. Mitchison: We are not dealing today with private house building. The Government do not build private houses, When the Conservative Government say that they have built 300,000 houses in a year, they are talking complete nonsense.

Mr. Bevins: This is very tiresome. I had not wished to delay the Committee unduly, but if the hon. and learned Gentleman wants the figures of local authority building during the two six-year periods, he is welcome to them. Between 1946 and 1951 the total number of houses built by public authorities—local authorities, new town corporations, and so on—in England and Wales was 727,000. The figure during the last six years was almost 1,100,000. The position is very similar, whether one talks about building by local authorities or house building as a whole.

Mr. C. W. Key: Will the hon. Member now give the figures of the number of men in the building industry employed in war damage repairs in the years immediately after the war, compared with those in recent years?

Mr. Bevins: No.

Mr. Mitchison: Why not?

Mr. Bevins: Because we are not debating war damage repairs. We are debating house building. The Committee knows perfectly well that the output of the labour force of the building industry during the last six years has been very considerably higher than it was between 1946 and 1951.

Mr. Key: I want the hon. Member to face this problem. The problem with


which we are dealing is that of building houses, and the building of houses depends upon the number of men available for it. If more than one out of every two in the building industry are engaged in war damage repairs, then the men are not available to build new houses. That explains the figures for the years of the Labour Government and the years of the Conservative Government.

Mr. Bevins: This is a most extraordinary argument. The argument is that although fewer than 1 million houses were built during the first six-post-war years and although 1¾ million were built in the subsequent six years, that difference between almost 1 million and 1¾ million is entirely due to the use of the building labour force on bomb damage repairs. What a ridiculous argument.

Mr. G. Lindgren: Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that 2½ million houses were reconstructed for habitation in those six years?

Mr. Bevins: I am quite prepared to admit that there was a good deal of war damage to be done immediately after the war but, with great respect, that does not explain the enormous increase in house building during the last six years.

Sir Henry Studholme: Is it not a fact that the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) said, when we claimed that we could build 300,000 houses a year, that we could build only 200,000? Does not the whole of the Opposition's argument fall to the ground?

Mr. Bevins: I am very reluctant to use quotations of that sort against the Labour Party, especially in 1958, but what my hon. Friend said is perfectly true.
The hon. and learned Member for Kettering referred to the coming borough elections. It is true that neither the imminence nor the results of elections of any kind go unnoticed in the House. The borough elections are due to take place a week today, and I am sure that the hon. and learned Member's speech had nothing to do with those coming events.
The hon. and learned Member made one or two comments about the rents charged for local authority houses, and it is fair to say that in the past he and his hon. Friends have been highly critical, first, of the Government's action in

abolishing the general-need subsidies, to which he referred in passing today, and, secondly, the present high rates of interest which are charged to local authorities. It is true that we are now concentrating housing subsidies on those dwellings which we think are most needed—that is, houses for those who come from the slums and dwellings for elderly people. It is also true that the present Public Works Loan Board rate is the high one of 6¼ per cent.
The hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Lewis)—I am sorry that he is not in his place this afternoon—seems to have an insatiable thirst for information about the total cost over an inordinate period of a three bedroom house, on the assumption that the money is raised for sixty years at the current rate of interest. The figure of about £6,000 seems to him to be the quintessence of Tory wickedness
As both sides of the Committee know, very few local authorities indeed need to adjust their rents to correspond with interest rates. The large local authorities maintain their consolidated loan funds or mortgage pools and they work so that the effective rate of interest is always a good deal less than the market rate of interest. Very often it does not exceed 4 or 4½ per cent. Even those local authorities which do not operate those methods have the opportunity of achieving the same result by the pooling of rents.
The hon. and learned Member referred to a figure quoted in a debate by my right hon. Friend and I have no doubt that my right hon. Friend will desire to say a word or two on that later. At this point, however, I should like to say that even today, and allowing for the fact that many local authorities have raised their council house rents since the abolition of the general-need subsidy, the average rent of a three-bedroom house owned by county boroughs in England and Wales is only about 17s. It is true that in urban and rural districts the figure is rather higher, but even so, compared with present-day wages, these rents are certainly not out of the way.

Mr. Lindgren: The average person includes rates with rent, and when rates are added the figure is much higher. The Parliamentary Secretary is quoting an exclusive rent and not an inclusive figure with rates.

Mr. Bevins: I am obliged to the hon. Member.
The hon. and learned Member for Kettering also stressed, quite rightly, the difficulties of the new towns corporations, who, because of the absence of a pool of pre-war houses, cannot pool rents to the same advantage as local authorities can do. That, however, is precisely why, in 1956, the subsidies for overspill building were not only maintained, but were increased. Moreover, the advances which are now made by the Exchequer to the corporations bear interest at a rate of 5¾ per cent. as against the normal 6¼ per cent.
It is true, as both sides of the Committee know, that the rents of the houses of the new towns corporations are higher than those of local authorities, but even so, there is still no dearth of demand for that type of house. It is also true that there are difficulties concerning overspill. The receiving authorities throughout the country are, naturally, rather reluctant to pool rents at the expense of their older tenants. Dear money, therefore, tends to discourage the receiving local authorities. I want, however, to make it clear that preparations for the provision of overspill are going ahead in many areas. It is certainly the hope of my right hon. Friend that when interest rates fall, many of these schemes will come to fruition.
After all that has been said, not only in this debate, but in our earlier debates, when criticisms are levelled so harshly at my right hon. Friend one is entitled to ask what the party opposite would do in the matter of subsidies and interest rates. Only yesterday, I was looking at the recent policy statement issued by Transport House, price 6d. It asks:
How will the next Labour Government tackle these problems?
That is, the problems that the hon. and learned Member was discussing this afternoon. The answer to the question is that the
local councils have led the country's housing drive. A Labour Government will give them every possible help, including loans at reasonable rates of interest and subsidies where needed for the building of new houses.
What does "subsidies where needed" mean? Does it mean that the party opposite, if it was in power today, would restore the general-need subsidy, or does

it not mean that? If not, what does it mean? What does the party opposite mean by "loans at reasonable rates of interest"? What is a reasonable rate of interest?
It is no use the party opposite deluding itself that it will ever again go back to a permanent Bank Rate of 2½ per cent. Indeed, the right hon. Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson) told us not so long ago that if he were Chancellor of the Exchequer he would not hesitate to use monetary controls in a crisis and, if necessary, to use them ruthlessly. The party opposite cannot, therefore, rule out 5 per cent. or even 6 per cent. under the direction of the right hon. Member for Huyton.

Mr. Mitchison: The hon. Gentleman has asked a number of questions which, perhaps, do not relate very closely to what we are discussing today. I recognise that to be the last line of defence always put up by the party opposite. I have heard such questions before. Had the hon. Gentleman listened to debates in the House, he would have heard me say at least twice exactly what appears in that pamphlet. It is perfectly plain. We shall see that local authorities get their money at a reasonable rate of interest. We do not regard the present rate as reasonable. If the hon. Gentleman wants to call that a hidden subsidy, he can certainly do so; he has done it before.
I have been saying today that I think the removal of the general-need subsidy has done a great deal of damage and that subsidies for housing were always recognised to be necessary and, in my view, still are necessary. The hon. Gentleman cannot expect the Opposition to tell him in advance, without knowledge of the extent of the economic mess in which the present Government may have involved us by then, the amount of the subsidy, or what is a reasonable rate of interest. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would do better to keep to the subject of the debate.

Mr. Bevins: After that intervention, I am even less clear than when I read the booklet whether the party opposite intends to reinstate the general-need subsidy. The one thing about which I am clear is that the hon. and learned Member is marching shoulder to shoulder with


the right hon. Member for Huyton. They both desire that local authorities should enjoy differential and preferential rates of interest.
The hon. and learned Gentleman must, however, follow the logic of his own argument; he has not yet done so. The right hon. Member for Huyton did follow its logic, because when he wrote in the Manchester Guardian that the party opposite would not scruple to use monetary devices to help the economy he said that he would provide a differential and lower rate of interest to the whole of local government services, to essential industry and to colonial development.
If the party opposite is serious in an assertion of that nature, it must face the fact that those things together—all local government, all essential industry, including the nationalised industries, and colonial development—add up to about 75 per cent. of the total capital investment of the country. If the party opposite is to give a lower rate of interest for all those things, it is virtually saying that it does not propose to use monetary devices to save the economy at all. The hon. and learned Gentleman cannot escape from the logic of that argument.
Now, I turn to the size of the local authority programme, of which the hon. and learned Gentleman mainly spoke. Over the years, investment in housing as a whole in England and Wales accounts for about one-fifth of the total capital investment programme. When, therefore, towards the end of last year, the Government decided—I think, rightly—to retard capital investment in the interests of a sound currency, it was inevitable that housing should take some reduction. In the debate on the Address, my right hon. Friend said that the number of houses to be completed by local authorities and new towns corporations in England and Wales would need to be slowed down to a figure of about 100,000 in the financial year 1959–60. He also made it clear that this would affect the number of houses started during the current year.
Last year, local authorities and housing associations started 121,000 new houses and put out to tender 113,000 houses. This year, we expect to complete between 115,000 and 120,000 local authority houses. This year, local

authorities will put out to tender about 100,000 houses.

Mr. Mitchison: Does that include new towns?

Mr. Bevins: Yes.
I want to emphasise that the need to restrain investment in housing has not involved any immediate check on the slum clearance programme, although it may well be that that programme will level out at about its present rate over the next year or so. Last year, as, I think, the hon. and learned Gentleman said, 45,000 houses were demolished, but this year the number will be greater. It may be as high as 60,000 or 65,000. If, as we hope, this figure is reached, we shall be moving about 200,000 people from the slums this year.
What mostly interested me in the speech of the hon. and learned Gentleman was that although he deplored the reduction in the local authority housing programme——

Mr. Mitchison: I think that by a slip of the tongue, the Parliamentary Secretary said that 45,000 slum houses had been demolished last year. The right figure is just over 35,000.

Mr. Bevins: I gave the figure that 45,000 were demolished last year and I am advised that that is correct.
I was most interested in what the hon. and learned Gentleman had to say—and, indeed, what he did not have to say—about the reduction in the local authority housing programme and how it should be tackled. I certainly did not understand the hon. and learned Gentleman to say that housing as a whole should be completely immune from capital investment cuts and I doubt whether that is his view.
If that is the case, what is the hon. and learned Gentleman's argument? Is it that this cut in housing should fall predominantly on private house building and only to a smaller extent on local authority housing? That is what I, and, I am sure, my hon. Friends, do not understand. Once we accept the assumption that, in the interests of a sound currency and in the interests of fighting inflation, housing has to make a contribution to the problem, from which sector of the housing programme is the reduction to come? It was on that score that the hon.


and learned Gentleman had nothing at all to say. If he wants to say it now, I will gladly give way.

Mr. Mitchison: The hon. Gentleman is perfectly right. I did not tackle the matter from that point of view. What I said was that we must have more council house building, particularly for general need, than we are getting at present. I believe that to be true. I do not believe that it is necessary, in the interests of anti-inflation, or inflation or reflation or any other interest, to cut down council house building in the way in which it is being cut down at present. Whether or not the credit squeeze works on private house building is an interesting matter, but it is not what we are discussing on these Estimates.

Mr. Bevins: That is a most unilluminating answer, if I may say so. We do not even know now whether the hon. and learned Member believes that the Government are right to interfere at all with the general housing programme. All we know—this is what I infer from what the hon. and learned Member has just said—is that if he had his way the programmes of local authorities would not be reduced, certainly not as they affect building for general need.

Mr. Mitchison: They would be increased.

Mr. Bevins: If the hon. and learned Member would increase the programmes of local authorities, I do not understand for a moment what sort of a contribution he would be making to the contest against inflation in any way. I put it to him very seriously that if he is asking this afternoon that local authorities' programmes should be maintained at last year's figure, the logic is that something should be done to cut down on private enterprise building for sale. If one does not accept that proposition one is saying that housing must make no contribution to the battle against inflation.
The hon. and learned Member also had something to say this afternoon about the difficulties of young married people and others in the purchase of their homes. I see from the booklet from which I quoted earlier that the party opposite says:
will Labour help people to buy their own houses?

The answer is:
Yes—and this was actually done by the Labour Government from 1945 to 1951 when rates of interest on mortgages from local councils were kept down to 3¼ per cent. and building society rates averaged about 4½ per cent.
A newcomer to politics might be forgiven for thinking that the party opposite was really enthusiastic about house purchase. Indeed, the Labour Party now officially advocates, as a party, that 100 per cent. mortgages should be advanced to house purchasers without making it clear from where the money is to come.
Experience is a very good guide in these matters. The record shows that the party opposite was just a little indifferent to these people between 1945 and 1951. In the whole of that period private house construction in England and Wales averaged only 28,000 a year. In the last six years it has averaged nearly 90,000 a year. I think that the Committee needs to be reminded of these things occasionally. Between 1946 and 1951 the Labour Government worked on the curious principle—it certainly seems curious in retrospect—that local authorities should be allowed to licence only one private house for every four council houses, that is to say, one-fifth of the allocation that they were so generously providing.
Throughout those years local authorities operated the dreary and delaying system of building licences for a man who wanted to buy a house for his family. It is all very well for the party opposite today to talk about 100 per cent. mortgages and low rates of interest for house purchase, but those things are not much use if the party which forms the Government will not allow one to build a house if one wants to do so for a family.

Mr. Mitchison: Since it was he who introduced the subject of the anti-inflationary drive, would not the hon. Gentleman agree that building licences would be a much more effective and better method of combating inflation than cutting down the building of necessary houses by councils?

Mr. Bevins: I am sorry that I cannot oblige the hon. and learned Member with an affirmative answer to that question. I had a little experience of the operation of building licensing three or four years ago, when I held a minor post in the


Ministry of Works. If anything was required to convince me of the folly of building licensing that was it.

Mr. Lindgren: The hon. Gentleman is trying to make good party capital, but will he not agree that during a whole period of housing, whatever period he likes to take, the ratio of houses rented to those owner-occupied has always been about 10 to 3?

Mr. Bevins: Over a long period of time, the hon. Member is probably right. I think it equally fair to state that now—and certainly over the last few years—there has been a great advance in private enterprise house building, largely to make up for the arrears incurred between 1946 and 1951.
The hon. and learned Member for Kettering and his hon. Friends quite clearly resent these reductions in local authority building programmes. We realise as clearly as they do that many family, human and domestic problems are involved in the whole range of the housing programme. An understanding of these problems is not the monopoly of any one political party. As hon. Members on both sides of the Committee know, political parties are sometimes driven into courses of action which they dislike in order to avoid more unpalatable consequences. I hope I may be forgiven by right hon. and hon. Members opposite if, very gingerly, I remind them of what happened when their Governments were faced with economic difficulties in 1947 and 1949.
They not only jammed the brakes on very hard against the building of private houses, but they planned to reduce council house building. At the time of the economic crisis, late in 1947, they applied a 20 per cent. housing cut, which revealed itself in a very sharp fall in housing completions in 1949. Immediately following the devaluation of the £, in 1949, they announced a cut in the housing programme of £35 million, partly in the private sector and partly in the public sector. I do not think that it is any use either party in this Committee pretending that any responsible Government, faced with economic difficulties, can allow the housing programme as a whole to move along as it has been doing without any interruption or modification.
I wish to say a word or two about the future. My right hon. Friend will continue to urge local authorities to concentrate their efforts primarily on slum clearance. We shall also continue to do all we can to expand the building of dwellings for elderly people. For some time past we have been asking local authorities to build more dwellings of this sort. The average percentage of old people's dwellings in the whole postwar period has been about 9 per cent. It has now risen to approximately 23 per cent.
Even so, we are still not satisfied. We feel that local authorities in general should be doing a great deal more to provide for the special needs of the elderly. That is partly because—as hon. Members know—we have an ageing population, and partly because of the scope which now exists for local authorities—and indeed for others—to make better use of existing accommodation, provided that we have the required number of one-bedroom dwellings available.
My right hon. Friend has been giving most careful thought to this matter. Although a measure of restraint on housing investment is still necessary to combat inflation, he is, nevertheless, anxious to encourage new building for old people as much as he possibly can. In the circular and booklet about flatlets for elderly people which he is addressing to local authorities today, we have asked authorities to tell us what they propose to do. In those cases where the authority is faced with a special problem which calls for urgent attention my right hon. Friend is prepared to look again as sympathetically as he can at their present building programme and consider whether more provision can be made for the benefit of elderly people. In this way we hope to be able to do something to give immediate help where there is unusual and pressing need. I believe that action by my right hon. Friend will commend itself to right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the Committee.
In addition, my right hon. Friend has urged local authorities, by circular and otherwise, to do all they can, both by purchase and by transfers, to help in the process of getting property more fully occupied. As the Committee knows, it is more important than ever, when we


have restrictions on capital expenditure, to make the best use of existing accommodation.

Mr. Mitchison: Before the hon. Gentleman leaves that very interesting subject, may I ask whether he has any figures on under-occupation more recent than those of the 1951 Census?

Mr. Bevins: I do not think that my right hon. Friend is in possession of any later figures, but I am sure that it is within the knowledge of hon. Members on both sides of the Committee that there is very considerable under-occupation at present—[HON. MEMBERS: "Where?"] It will make a very real contribution if we have the co-operation of local authorities——

Mr. Simon Mahon: And of private enterprise.

Mr. Bevins: —and other interested agencies, in making a contribution to this problem.
I apologise for speaking at such length on this subject. The hon. and learned Member for Kettering may feel that a few of the points I have made may have had a slight political flavour, but after all, he is never excessively inhibited in that respect. Knowing him as I do, I know he will forgive me for that.

4.42 p.m.

Mr. A. E. Hunter: The matter under discussion this afternoon is a very great human and social problem. I am amazed that the Parliamentary Secretary, who represents a constituency in a large industrial town, should be so satisfied. I wish to deal with the subject as a human problem and not to follow the Parliamentary Secretary into a mass of figures. I should not care what Minister of Housing was in control, Labour, Conservative or Liberal, he could not be satisfied with the spectacle of hundreds of thousands of people being unable to get a decent home.
I expect that hon. Members opposite hold advice bureau meetings. I hold one in my constituency. We deal with all kinds of problems, but the greatest human problem is that of people who come to see us when they are searching for a home.

Mr. Robert Jenkins: indicated assent.

Mr. Hunter: I am glad to see the hon. Member for Dulwich (Mr. Robert Jenkins) nod in agreement, because he takes a great deal of interest in this matter.
People come to me and ask, "Can you help us, Mr. Hunter?" A Member of Parliament can only bring such matters to this House. He has no jurisdiction over local authorities, which have their points and allocation schemes. I believe that they endeavour to work those schemes fairly. Obviously, when there is a limited number of houses to be shared, they cannot please everybody. So I plead for these people today.
Some of the people who come to us sometimes break down in tears. What can the Parliamentary Secretary say to a person who has no residential qualification? Again, there are those who say that the list is closed and they can only go on to the suspended list, there already being a list of nearly 2,000. What is his reply to those people who seek our aid? Nobody could be satisfied with the housing situation in the country as it affects those who are unable to afford to buy a house, and whose only hope of a house is to rent it.
Hon. Gentlemen opposite have always averred that they stand for the man who wants to be an owner-occupier. The Minister should remember that it is deeds that count, not words. Young people come to my advice bureau and say, "We have been to five or six building societies and they say that our salary is too small". I gather that anyone seeking a loan on mortgage must earn in a week what his outgoings will be in a month, including repayment of loan, rates, water rate, and so forth. This requires, roughly, a weekly wage of at least £14 to £15. One can, therefore, appreciate the difficulty of young people who want to buy their own homes, with the interest rates on housing loans under this Government adding to their difficulties.
We on this side of the Committee have always supported anyone who wanted to become an owner-occupier. Often, a man will say to me, "I am married. My wife has a fairly good job, but the building societies will not accept us. They say that they can only take into account my income. They say that my wife may have a child, and that her income may go". There are, therefore, very many people


without residential qualifications, who are on a housing list but with very little hope of being housed by a council. The problem remains as great today as it was in 1945. I should say that the housing problem of most wage earners is as great in 1958 as it was in 1945. It is wrong of the Parliamentary Secretary to be so complacent about it.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison), whose figures were more or less confirmed by the Parliamentary Secretary, said that there would be about 100,000 houses built by councils this year for letting. We must bear in mind that it is only the councils which build for rent. Private enterprise is building, but for sale, not for rent. Flats and maisonettes are being built today for sale. A man without any capital, who does not earn a salary sufficient to buy his own home, is bound to depend on the local authority. We can easily see how difficult the problem is.
We have from my hon. and learned Friend the figure of only 100,000 houses built for renting in 1958. My hon. and learned Friend told us that, of those, roughly 40,000 would be for slum clearance. New towns would account for 11,000 and about 23,000 would be left for general need. I should imagine that the Parliamentary Secretary's own town, Liverpool, could almost take that 23,000. Yet that is the number we are to have throughout the country. Those on the housing lists of local authorities have, therefore, very faint hopes indeed while this Government are in power.
In my constituency, there are two local authorities, the Feltham Urban District Council and part of the Borough of Heston and Isleworth. We have nearly 2,000 on the waiting list in Feltham. I believe that Heston and Isleworth has a waiting list of about 4,000. That is the extent of the problem in that part of Middlesex. In Feltham alone, in 1954 and 1955, even during the period of power of the present Government, we were having 240 houses per year, although no doubt the plans were made during the period of the Labour Government and we were making some strides towards solving this great social problem.
Last year, the Feltham local authority had 40 new houses, as against 240 in

1954 and 1955. The only others available—very few indeed—come from people who move. As for Heston and Isleworth, as I said, there is a list of about 4,000. In South-West Middlesex, we have a big industrial area, with large engineering companies on the Great South-West Road, at Hounslow. We have London Airport. Hon. Members should readily be able to appreciate the pressure on housing accommodation there.
I make the plea to the right hon. Gentleman today that he should carefully examine the numbers on the lists. Will he ask all local authorities in Middlesex to submit their housing lists? Some local authorities have two lists, an active list and a suspended list. I ask the Minister to gather information about Middlesex. In my view, the only permanent solution for Middlesex is a new town, and I hope very much that the right hon. Gentleman will go forward with that.
I welcome the statement today about old people's flats. That is good news, which all hon. Gentlemen will welcome. We pleaded for it during the debate on social services for old people. The Parliamentary Secretary was right in saying that there is an ageing population. We should go on building old people's flats. If local authorities can transfer old people, who may be in two or three-bedroom council houses, into old people's flats, that may make way for younger families.
This is a great social problem. After all, a home is a base for life. It is all very well for the Parliamentary Secretary to talk about inflation, but when people plead with us, must we say, "I am sorry, but you cannot have a new house because we are fighting inflation"? Does that make an appeal to people in that plight? Anyone who has had the problem of walking the streets of London or Middlesex looking for somewhere to live, or going again and again to a local authority for help, will know the extent of the problem. The Minister should take a census in Middlesex and ascertain what the situation really is, and let the local authorities go ahead with building all the accommodation they can to help solve this great human problem.

4.53 p.m.

Mr. Graham Page: The hon. Member for Feltham (Mr. Hunter) has made a very sincere contribution to this debate. All right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the Committee have again and again had examples brought to their notice of tragedy in the lives of people looking for a home and of the extent of the human and social problem produced by the lack of accommodation. People come to me and ask for my advice. There is little help one can give, for Members of Parliament cannot interfere with the allocation of houses by local authorities. I feel very angry when I see people really in need and I know of the number of council house tenants, well-to-do, well-off people, who do not need the council houses in which they are living. I will return to that narrow point later, if I may.
I wish now to refer to some of the figures given by the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) who, though not here at the moment, has a very adequate substitute in the person of the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Lindgren). The hon. and learned Gentleman gave a mass of figures, but they really all boil down to the simple point that the annual rate at which local authority houses have been built over the past two years is almost exactly the same as the annual rate at which they were built during the last three years of the Socialist Government. One has only to look at the figures in the housing returns to see that that is so. It cannot be said that war damage repairs then were so urgent and so heavy that all the building labour was being taken on that work during the whole of the last three years of the Socialist Government.
The average over the last three years of the Socialist Government was 140,000 council houses built per year. For 1955 and 1956, the average was about 138,000 or 139,000. Talk about the present Government making terrible cuts in council house building is nonsense. This Government has been building the same number as the Socialist Government built during the last three years of their term of office.

Mr. Lindgren: The hon. Gentleman will agree, I hope, that the 1939–45 war was devastating to the country's resources. One would assume that, by 1958, we were

a little better off, or ought to be, than we were in 1948.

Mr. Page: I am speaking of the years 1949, 1950 and 1951.

Mr. Lindgren: Are we no better off after six years of Toryism?

Mr. Page: In 1948, the Socialist Government managed to build 170,000 houses. In the following year, the number was cut by 30,000. If they could build 170,000 in 1948, why could they not do it in 1949, 1950 and 1951? Does that not defeat the argument about building labour not being available because of war damage repairs?
I wish to draw attention to one other little error in what the hon. and learned Gentleman said. He said, rather vaguely, that private building at present was running at about the same rate over the past two or three years. In fact, it has been increasing quite substantially: 110,000 in 1955; 119,000 in 1956; 122,000 in 1957. Not as much as local authority building, but steadily increasing and taking up, as it were, a slight reduction in local authority house building.
The hon. and learned Member for Kettering practically invited Members on this side of the Committee to trot out the argument, which, apparently, he thought we should use, that council housing is wicked and evil. I think that those were his words, or something like that. The figures certainly do not show a belief on the part of the party on this side that there is anything wrong in local authorities providing housing accommodation. The figures represent the same sort of level of building of that type of house as there was under the Socialist Government.
The Motion is to increase the Vote, a Vote which includes about £65 million for subsidies for the year. It is right that the Committee should see how that money is being used, so that it may consider whether the Vote should be increased. The Committee ought to consider how the subsidies are being spent and used by the local authorities. The Minister ought to look carefully into the way local authorities are utilising those moneys. Are they really using the subsidies for the purpose of housing people such as those to whom the hon. Member for Feltham referred, people who have a real human problem in finding a home? I am


sure that hon. Members know perfectly well that there are many cases in which the subsidies are used to house people who do not need a subsidy at all.

Mr. Lindgren: Will the hon. Gentleman give us a few cases from his own constituency?

Mr. Page: I will give the hon. Gentleman a number of cases from all over the country if he will be patient. But let me develop my argument before I give those examples.
The local authority is under an obligation to provide for the housing needs of its area. There are many people in council houses who have no need for that type of accommodation, because they have the means and the opportunity to provide accommodation for themselves. I want to make a rather deliberate and premeditated attack upon those well-to-do tenants who are spongeing on the public by living on a subsidy. I also want to make an attack on the local authorities who are permitting them to do so. I think that the taxpayer should be relieved of making any contribution towards the rent of tenants who can afford to pay an economic rent, or to buy their own house. I am sure that hon. Members will be perfectly well aware of the resentment that is felt against this type of council tenant. They must have found this in their correspondence, as, indeed, I have.

Mr. Lindgren: None at all.

Mr. Page: After the war, and from 1945 to 1951, while the Socialist Party was in office, it was probably quite right to provide housing accommodation regardless of the means of the tenant. What I would call the lamentable failure of that Government to ensure that sufficient housing was provided at that time made it necessary not to consider the means when allocating houses. But in the last five years the situation has changed. There are many empty houses at figures which the well-to-do council tenants could easily afford to pay in rent or to buy.

Dr. Horace King: Where are they?

Mr. Page: Perhaps I might give the hon. Gentleman a list which has come to

my notice as a result of putting this proposition forward in the country, which received a certain amount of publicity in the national Press and brought me a large amount of correspondence. I have taken the trouble to check one or two of these cases.
Why, for example, should we subsidise a company director in Theydon Bois, Essex, who has not only a motor car, but an aeroplane? He is paying a rent of 46s. a week. Why should we subsidise the landlord at Weymouth who owns three large houses, but is living in a council house himself? Why should we subsidise the £40 a week tenant at Silkmere, Stafford?

Mr. Arthur Moyle: What was the date of the building of that council house?

Mr. Page: I cannot say.

Mr. Moyle: That is important.

Mr. Page: I entirely agree that it is important, because I cannot say when the house was built. The subsidy might be anything between 2s. and 16s. or 17s. a week.

Mr. Mahon: It may be the economic rent of the house.

Mr. Page: It may well be, but surely it is not for the local authority to provide accommodation for that type of person in houses which are being subsidised, and to say that it is the economic rent of the house and that there is no subsidy on it is a fallacy. A subsidy is still being paid in respect of that house, and, therefore, it is enabling the local authority to house people who do not deserve to be housed.
The hon. Member for Wellingborough asked me to give some examples, and I will give others in addition to those that I have mentioned. There is, for example, the £50 a week tenant at Swansea, the £50 a week tenant at St. Albans, the £65 a week tenant in Carmarthenshire, who is paying a rent of £1 a week, and the £160 a week tenant at Heyland, Yorks—he admitted that himself in the county court—who is paying 30s. a week. Then there is the married couple, both with substantial earnings, a car and a television set, living in an old people's bungalow in Norfolk. There is the man who earns £15, his wife £10, a daughter


£8 and a son £12, making a total of £45 a week, who have just bought a new car for £400, a television set for £100, living at Cheltenham in a council house.

Mr. J. A. Sparks: The information is of use to us, but of the authorities that the hon. Gentleman has so far read out all but two are Conservative-controlled and, therefore, responsible for the sort of thing about which he is talking.

Mr. Page: I am not concerned whether it is a Conservative council or a Socialist council. I am pleading that the Minister should look into this matter and hold an inquiry, as his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland is doing in Scotland.

Mr. B. T. Parkin: Is the hon. Gentleman laying down a new principle on behalf of his party, that council houses must in future be regarded as almshouses reserved for the deserving poor, and that if a family's income goes up they can be expected to be thrown out?

Mr. Page: I think that if the income of the family goes up, then they should be thrown out.

Hon. Members: No.

Mr. Parkin: I hope that we have that on the record.

Mr. Page: Does the hon. Gentleman wish that people earning £30 a week should live in a council house when there are people on the waiting list who need it because their income is low? The hon. Member for Feltham said that this was a human problem, and so it is. I see no reason why those who have substantial incomes should continue to enjoy a subsidy by living in a council house. I exclude the 17 councillors of Coventry and very many more in Manchester, because I do not know their incomes, but I do not exclude those hon. Members of this House who enjoy council houses on an income of £33 10s. a week.

Mr. Parkin: I will try not to raise the temperature of the debate. I know that the hon. Gentleman has deliberately embarked on a controversial statement; but will he confirm that in addition to the step taken by his party over the Rent Act, which has for the first time in living

memory removed security of tenure from tenants, he is now adding a proposal to remove security of tenure from council house tenants, because that will complete the policy and will be something which has not been known in this country since before the First World War.

Mr. Page: I do not shirk that issue at all. I was expecting someone to accuse me of advocating more evictions. I say it for the very reason that we must provide for those who may be in difficulty under the Rent Act. I believe that if councils would clear out their wealthy tenants there would be accommodation for the few hardship cases which may result from the Rent Act. I see no reason why the council tenants should be insulated from decontrol. Council houses have never been subject to control. The reason why they have not been made subject to control is so that the local authority should provide for the housing needs of its citizens and it should adapt its housing accommodation to those needs. This is the time for adaptation. This is the time to get rid of those who do not need that housing and to provide for those who really do.

Mr. W. G. Cove: There ought to be a means test.

Mr. Page: I am willing to face the need for a means test. These wealthy people are taking the benefit of subsidies, the taxpayers' money and the ratepayers' money and are keeping poor people out of those houses. I do not think that a differential rent scheme is sufficient.

Mr. Albert Evans: So that we might know the full extent to which the hon. Gentleman would operate this policy, would he apply it to the new town houses as well as council houses?

Mr. Page: No. I think that different considerations apply to the new towns. In the development of the new town it may well be necessary to provide for those with higher incomes. The problem in the case of a new town is exactly the same as that which obtained generally during the first five or six years after the war. Means should be disregarded in building up those towns.

Mr. Mahon: As a member of a big family I can be certain on this point.
A family's income may increase or just as naturally decrease; but at what level does the hon. Gentleman want to evict the family?

Mr. Page: If there is more than £30 a week coming into the house——

Mrs. Harriet Slater: Irrespective of the family income?

Mr. Page: —of a family of a husband and wife and two teenage children, that family does not deserve a council house. One would have to take into account the responsibilities of the family, the number of children, and the number earning, and so on.
I do not wish to delay the Committee by going into this matter in detail. It is obviously something which can be worked out. All that I wanted to stress today was that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland has instituted an inquiry into housing conditions in Glasgow. I think that such an inquiry is just as necessary in many towns in England. I would like to see an inquiry into the level of rents and the number of council houses let to tenants with an income of over, say, £30 a week in England. It is a thing which should not be delayed. It is a matter which is urgent and which is becoming a public scandal.

5.13 p.m.

Mrs. Joyce Butler: I do not propose to follow the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) in all he said about council house tenants, because we are all familiar with the technique of taking one or two examples and trying to discredit the position of council house tenants. In my view, that is what he has done this afternoon.

Mr. Page: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Lady so early, but I am sure she does not believe that I am discrediting all council house tenants. In fact, I endeavoured to say that I believe in local authority housing and my intention was that it should be provided for those in real need.

Mrs. Slater: That is a red herring.

Mrs. Butler: Shall I say that he has endeavoured to belittle the case for council houses by drawing attention to a few examples of tenants whom he thinks

should not occupy council houses? Everybody knows it is possible at particular times to find people living in houses who collectively as a family enjoy what could be regarded as a high income.
As has been said, some of these families to which the hon. Gentleman drew attention, and to which other hon. Members opposite have from time to time drawn attention, are very often families who have been through an excessively difficult time when the children were small. For a very brief period when the children begin to earn and remain at home, they do enjoy a higher incomes and can then replace some of the things they have had to go without. But, in a short time some of these children marry and leave home and the elderly couple are left on their own resources once again and are very often dependent on the old-age pension.
It would be completely wrong to turn out such a family from a council house during the period when the children are earning. There is nowhere for them to go, because it is probable that if such a family were turned out the parents would be too old to be able to get a mortgage if they wanted to buy a house, and the children would not be able to get a mortgage to buy a house. We must be realistic in these matters. The situation which the hon. Gentleman has tried to paint is a completely false picture of the desperate position of people who need a a council house at the present time but cannot get one because of Government policy, and of those who are living in council houses and are having to pay increasingly high rents again because of Government policy.
I have been shocked at the complacency of hon. Gentlemen opposite about the housing problem. Reference has already been made to it this afternoon. It is a shocking attitude of complacency, which anyone who serves on a local authority or who has been meeting his constituents knows bears no true relation to the facts. Those of us who are in touch with our constituents must be aware of the desperate need of many families to obtain housing accommodation. Reference has already been made to the young married couple with two or three children, living in one or two rooms, who want a council house. Then there are the families who have been waiting for years and years to


get a council house but have been unable to acquire one, and who cannot buy a house because, for one reason or another, they have not been able to put down the deposit. We all have these cases, some of them tragic. This is the real problem, to which have been added many others.
If we examine why the Government are so complacent about the position we find the answer to be a simple one. They know that in the main, when people are dissatisfied about housing, they will criticise their local authority. Yet the Government take credit for building houses, they say "we" have built so many houses, when it is the local authorities who build the houses. When they restrict housing policy, they know they can shelter behind the local authorities when criticism is forthcoming from members of the public.
I have in my hand a pamphlet issued by the party opposite which claims that they themselves are clearing the slums. But "they" are not clearing the slums, it is the local authorities who are doing so. The pamphlet has a heading "Home Again" and talks about the Conservatives having "pressed on with derequisitioning of private property". The pamphlet states that in October, 1951, there were 85,000 requisitioned dwellings and that in October, 1957, there were 44,000 requisitioned dwellings. They are claiming the credit for having reduced the number of requisitioned dwellings by one half. But "they" have not done it. It is the local authorities who have derequisitioned the dwellings and have often found alternative accommodation for the families living in them. That is the attitude of the Government towards all these problems—slum clearance, derequisitioning of requisitioned properties, clearing prefabs from open spaces. Yet those are the problems with which local authorities have had to deal, and which have put pressure upon them, and have made it more and more difficult for them to accommodate families from their housing waiting lists.
In my constituency, there are two local authorities. One is Wood Green, which has a housing waiting list of round about 1,500. The other is Tottenham, which has a housing waiting list of 9,000. Three thousand of the families on the latter list each live in one room. Tottenham is also engaged on a slum clearance programme, but every area of slum clearance

which is undertaken means that a great many more houses have to be provided than have been pulled down. Tottenham also has to derequisition houses. All these mounting pressures on local authorities make it more and more difficult for them to take families off their housing waiting lists, and in fact they are not able to do so because they are fully occupied with the other problems of slum clearance, derequisitioning, and so on.
Having got that off my chest, Sir Charles, and having assured the Minister that this is a real problem, may I point out to the Committee that it is completely untrue to say, as is said in this pamphlet—
In the country as a whole, overall supply and demand will very soon balance".
I notice they are now saying "will very soon balance", but I believe an earlier statement by a predecessor of the present Minister of Housing was that overall supply and demand would have balanced by the end of last year. Now they are being a little more cautious. We know there is no sign of that taking place because, in addition to all these other pressures, there are the pressures coming from the operation of the Rent Act. This is the priority which conscientious local authorities—in the main they are Labour local authorities—are having to face now on housing.
I want to put a specific point to the Minister in connection with areas like my own, of which there must be many in different parts of the country. Where local authorities are purchasing houses from which tenants are likely to be evicted under the Rent Act, the right hon. Gentleman could materially assist the solution of this problem by giving a higher subsidy for the building of flats for elderly people. I understand that a circular is being sent to local authorities about the building of such flats, but it is not much use sending circulars to local authorities, exhorting them to build more flats, unless something positive is done about it. In the Borough of Wood Green we have 179 elderly people on our special housing waiting list and on our Rent Act list we have 76 people over 60 years of age who are likely to be evicted. We do not know the number of elderly sub-tenants who may be evicted.
If the council purchased some of the houses in which elderly people are now


living as tenants of private landlords, we could move those elderly people into elderly persons' flats, if these were available, and put families from the waiting list into the purchased houses. However, the present subsidy for old people is not big enough to encourage local authorities to do this and to enable them to build old people's flats or bungalows at an economic rent which the old people can afford. And there is a limit to the increasing amount of rate subsidy which local authorities can continue to incur in all these different directions.
I appeal to the Minister that if he wants local authorities to build accommodation for elderly people—and this is by far and away the easiest and the most effective way of making better use of existing accommodation, which the right hon. Gentleman has said he wants to do—to see whether he cannot increase the subsidy. The small sum, by comparison, which he would spend in this way would release a great deal of other accommodation that could be used for larger families on the housing waiting list. At the moment the housing problem involves juggling one form of accommodation against another because there is so little new accommodation. So I appeal to the Minister to consider my suggestion, which has the advantage of enabling elderly people to stay in their present localities. They cannot go to new towns and other places far from their present homes with any feeling of security or happiness. They want to remain in their own areas.
In Wood Green we were thinking of building a small block of one-bedroom and bed-sitting-room flats for elderly people. It was a very small block, accommodating only eight flats, and the cost of building it was estimated at £14,350. Working that out very roughly, it would mean that, apart from rates, the elderly people would have to pay at least £2 a week in rent. Since some of these were to be bed-sitting-room flats, it would mean that a single person or a widow would pay at least £2 a week net rent for this type of accommodation, which is beyond their consideration, and a subsidy would help materially. The £10 subsidy on these small flats merely covers decorations, repairs, administrative expenses, and so on, and would not

reduce the amount of rent to any appreciable extent.
I endorse what my hon. Friend said earlier, in urging the Minister to consider the question of a new town for boroughs in Middlesex which are desperately overcrowded. The right hon. Gentleman knows that those local authorities have been applying themselves to this problem, and he will have had representations on this point. Although there are difficulties about acquiring a site, that is not so much the problem nor is it one of getting the authorities to co-operate on this matter. The difficulty is financial. The Minister has indicated that he will not finance any new towns under the New Towns Act. Again I appeal to him, if he wants to help in this way, to see whether he can give greater financial assistance to this project than he has indicated so far. Otherwise the scheme cannot go forward because of the financial difficulties for the local authorities concerned.
There is another small point, a purely local one, and it concerns prefabs on open spaces. The Borough of Wood Green has appealed to the Minister many times to be allowed to retain these prefabs beyond the date at which they should be pulled down. The next batch of those prefabricated houses is due to come down in 1960.
Bearing in mind that these "prefabs" are in good condition and are likely to remain so for many years, I ask the Minister to reconsider his decision, especially as he is asking local authorities to provide accommodation for elderly people. Elderly people who will be evicted under the Rent Act at the end of the expiration of the provisions of the Landlord and Tenant (Temporary Provisions) Bill will have nowhere to go, will be unable to buy houses, and will not be able to rent accommodation because of their age. Such people could go into "prefabs" and probably be able to stay for the rest of their lives. I hope that the Minister will reconsider his decision, because this state of affairs probably applies to other parts of the country. It seems wrong at this time, with this pressure on housing accommodation to pull down perfectly good "prefabs" which, it is rumoured, are sold privately and reoccupied by private occupiers elsewhere.
The Minister will materially assist in a solution of the problem of accommodating old people if he will look again at the question of conversions of private property and relax still further the standard, on which the Ministry still insist, when old houses are converted for use by elderly people, or other council tenants. The cost of conversion today is sometimes almost that of building completely new premises. If old houses are bought and converted according to the standards laid down by the Ministry, the cost is almost as high as pulling down the house and building a completely new one. That seems to be a ridiculous situation and a colossal waste of money, because if the old buildings have any value at all, they need only minimum conversion to last for their limited lives.
With those one or two constructive suggestions, I hope that the Minister will feel that there is something that he can do. I urge him, with all the sincerity and energy that I can command, that he must do something. It is not enough to continue to say that over the past years the Government have built so many houses. That is not only not true, because the Government do not build houses, but it does not meet the needs of the present situation. All over the country there are families needing council houses for one reason or another, or needing properties which councils have bought and converted for their use. Those people look to local authorities for assistance, and it is the Minister's responsibility to help local authorities to meet that need and not to handicap them, as he is doing at present.

5.34 p.m.

Mr. Harold Gurden: It was not my intention to attack the hon. Lady the Member for Wood Green (Mrs. Butler), but she has rendered herself vulnerable in attempting to destroy the argument of my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) on the need to provide council houses for those who cannot afford to buy houses for themselves. The hon. Lady effectively proved that there was a need to provide council houses for those who could not afford to buy private houses, but she did not destroy the arguments of my hon. Friend that those earning £2,000 to £5,000 or more a year should not be allowed to live in a subsidised house when housing is still somewhat scarce. My hon. Friend

recommended that the Minister should do something about that.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: This is not a matter which needs any Parliamentary power, or which is in the Minister's power. Councils are housing authorities. Their contracts are weekly tenancies and they can change them by a week's notice at any time. If councils have let subsidised houses to wealthy friends instead of to needy citizens, they have the power to put that right at once.

Mr. Gurden: I am extremely glad of the support of the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman). However, he has destroyed the point made by one of his hon. Friends, that there was some protection for council tenants. The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne has now shown that there is no protection.
I come from one of those local authorities, the City of Birmingham local authority, which do not ask tenants who are earning large salaries to leave council houses. Birmingham still has a large waiting list.

Mr. Mahon: Does not the hon. Member's local housing committee find out the wages or salaries of those families which go to council houses when they first apply for a tenancy?

Mr. Gurden: Unfortunately, they do not look into that matter. The Opposition have been very critical of the suggestion that there should be a means test, but, in fact, the Socialist-controlled council in Birmingham does institute a means test to some extent.

Mr. Denis Howell: Mr. Denis Howell (Birmingham, All Saints)rose——

Mr. Gurden: I think that that amount of interruption is more than I ought to allow. If hon. Members will read the OFFICIAL REPORT tomorrow, they will see that my support for the case of my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby is quite clear. The case for the Opposition is that the Government have failed to provide sufficient houses. The Opposition are rather touchy—perhaps I would be if I were in their position—about the figures which show what happened when they were in power.

Mr. Mitchison: The hon. Member is talking about the case for the Opposition. I should have thought that it was quite simple. The point is that the Government are preventing the councils from building as many houses as are required. The Government do not build houses. They are provided by the councils.

Mr. Gurden: If those figures show that the Government are not allowing sufficient houses to be built, I can only say that between 1945 and 1950 there was even more Government interference, on that argument.
It is obvious to those of us who know Birmingham that the problem of clearing the slums is being tackled to a major extent for the first time in history. [HON. MEMBERS: "By the Socialists."] I appreciate the efforts of the Socialists who have closely followed the policy of the Conservatives on the council. The Socialists agreed with and supported the Conservatives in their plans for clearing the slums. The Government have given support and encouragement to this policy and now the Socialists in Birmingham have done very well indeed, and I wish them good luck in their efforts. However, let us establish the fact that for the first time in history, and under this Government, a major effort is being made and the slums are disappearing very fast.

Mr. Mahon: Nonsense.

Mr. Gurden: They are from the City of Birmingham.

Mr. Sparks: I am sure that the hon. Member is aware that the problem of slum clearance is nation-wide and not confined only to Birmingham. Is he not aware that in England, Wales and Scotland, there are just under I million scheduled slum houses which, at the rate of slum clearance over the past three years, will take twenty-five years to clear?

Mr. Gurden: I do not deny that it will take a long time, but at least the best progress that I have ever seen is now being made in Birmingham, and other parts of the country are also doing extremely well in comparison with the past. I put it to the Opposition Front Bench that we can judge these things only on past records, and that is why I am comparing the last five or six years with 1945–51.
The waiting lists for houses, particularly in Birmingham, are obviously swollen by prosperity in industry and by high wages which attract people to the cities. That has always been the case. Another cause of the difficulties in the overcrowded cities is the influx of coloured people. I know that they are entitled to come here, and that most of them are British people. Nevertheless, they seriously aggravate the situation. It may well be that they are not in the majority on the waiting lists and that an examination of the housing waiting lists will show that only a small proportion of the applicants are coloured and Irish people. [An HON. MEMBER: "Local people."] It may well be that the majority on the Birmingham housing list of 50,000 or 60,000 are Birmingham people. Nevertheless, the overall housing position is aggravated by this constant influx of coloured and Irish people.
It was a Socialist leader on the Birmingham City Council who said to me that Birmingham was always in trouble because it was always solving the unemployment problems of the coloured races and of Southern Ireland. That is perfectly true.

Mr. Mahon: The hon. Member is talking nonsense.

Mr. Gurden: It is not nonsense to say that the housing situation in the Midlands has been aggravated by an influx of coloured people. That is not a political issue. I have no more objection to coloured people as such than has the hon. Member.
During the past thirty years, the City of Birmingham has tackled this problem of the shortage of houses on six or seven occasions. All that time, there has been a waiting list of approximately 50,000 people, and I can remember that twenty-five or thirty years ago, the council decided to attack the problem in a big way and build a very large housing estate, which was to solve the problem of the shortage of houses for all time.
The council built houses for people on the waiting list, and when the estate was completed there was still a waiting list of 50,000 people. Therefore, the council started again and did the same thing, but at the end of that period there was still a waiting list of approximately 50,000 people. There has been another example more recently of more


or less the same thing. Since the war, the council has built a vast number of houses, and still we have the same vast waiting list.
I believe that, with the present prosperity of the Midlands and its industries, which always seem to be busy, this process will go on, unless we can find some other means of taking industry, or some part of it, to other areas, or alternatively, building very much higher buildings, which is something to which the council is now giving a great deal of attention. In the past there has been a great sprawl, which is not attractive.
I turn now to the case for the would-be owner-occupier. So much has been said, and always is said, for the council house tenant and his needs, but it should be remembered that the owner-occupier has to provide his own capital with which to find the deposit on his house, probably because, in some cases, with his level of income, he does not want to live in a subsidised house, or because he does not want to wait five or six years to obtain a council house. Let us give some thought to the position of the owner-occupier, and remember that he is sometimes subsidising people very much better off than himself. That was clearly proved by my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby.
It would be a great contribution to housing if we could in some way or other again provide houses for sale with a low deposit. I remember the time when one could get a house for a deposit of £10 or £20—[An HON. MEMBER: "But what a housel People are living in them today, and I can show the hon. Gentleman many such houses in which anybody might be proud to live.
Today, I do not think that providing houses is as inflationary as some people think. To encourage the would-be owner-occupier, it is most important that lower deposits should be possible to enable people to buy houses, and I believe that a £100 deposit is sufficient for these people to have to find. In the long run, I believe that that is more deflationary than inflationary, and that it provides a means of saving, and perhaps the best means we can suggest.
The people of Birmingham are extremely concerned with the fact that the council has yet to tackle this problem

of subsidising people so much better off, or is not tackling it with sufficient vigour. The Conservative Party, which is in the minority on the council, has a very sound plan for dealing with this problem of subsidising people in council houses who are much better off than others. Let us bear in mind the fact that very often it is the old-age pensioners who are haying to pay some of this subsidy to families earning perhaps £50 or £60 per week.

Mr. D. Howell: The hon. Gentleman must get his facts straight. Why was it that the Conservative Party, of which he was a member, when it was in control of the council as recently as a few years ago, and after a lengthy period in control, did none of these things which the hon. Gentleman is now advocating, and which, in fact, he himself did not advocate when a member of the council? Is it not a fact that the Labour Party, when it obtained control of the council, introduced a rent rebate scheme which has worked very successfully since? Why did he and his friends do nothing, whereas we did produce an equitable system which is working well?

Mr. Gurden: Let me admit at once that there is a considerable amount in what the hon. Member for All Saints (Mr. D. Howell) has said. I do not deny that my party did not carry through what it intended to do to extend this scheme and let a bit of sense into Birmingham's housing situation. I myself made a protest at the time, and that part of the hon. Gentleman's case against me is not true.
I would emphasise that the people of Birmingham, and, I have no doubt, of other cities, too, are very tired of subsidising those who are better off, and if anything that I say can support what my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby said I say it with great pleasure.

5.50 p.m.

Mrs. Harriet Slater: I am quite sure that the Minister must be very pleased with his hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Page), who has very cleverly diverted the substance of the debate by the red herring of the people living in council houses who happen to have large incomes. The hon. Gentleman mentioned, in particular, a company director. I suppose that a company director votes for the hon. Gentleman's party, and apparently has not got


the conscience that one would expect of him.

Mr. Page: I do not see why any company director should vote for the party on this side of the Committee. There are company directors on the other side.

Mrs. Slater: It is fairly logical to assume that, in general, company directors would be more likely to vote for the hon. Gentlemans' party than for the Socialist Party.
One of the arguments which the hon. Member for Selly Oak (Mr. Gurden) put forward was on the question of the old-age pensioner subsidising people in council houses. I have no children, but I never grumbled when I had not got a decent income about subsidising children's education, and I do not see that that argument holds water. We live in a community, and the community must take responsibility for the whole of its people. This argument about old-age pensioners subsidising somebody else or another public service is by no means one which should divert us from the problem we are discussing today.
When the hon. Member for Selly Oak reads his speech tomorrow, I think he will feel very sorry that he brought into this debate the question of the housing of coloured people. After all, these people are humans as well as ourselves, and we have a moral responsibility for the whole of our people. I suppose that they contribute towards the wealth and prosperity of industry in Birmingham, just as do other people.

Mr. Mahon: Would my hon. Friend also agree that the Irish regiments and the coloured regiments in the last war helped this country to a great victory?

Mr. Lindgren: The war is over now, so hon. Members opposite do not worry.

Mrs. Slater: We can forget, as the Parliamentary Secretary did, the difficulties immediately following the war concerning house building by the Labour Government.
I want to mention a point about slum clearance. I am very pleased to note that Birmingham is getting on with its slum clearance programme. It has needed to be tackled for many years, because

nothing was done about it pre-war. It is only now, when the social conscience has been aroused about it, that we are beginning to tackle the problem of the clearance of slums built up by private enterprise over the years.
In my own city, Stoke-on-Trent, which is not such a wealthy one as Birmingham, we hope this year to build between 250 and 300 houses for slum clearance to meet a problem of about 10,000 to 12,000 slum houses. That programme has been restricted by the Government's policy. There are several other factors which operate in relation to a local authority slum clearance programme. In the first place, there is the difficult position with the subsidy and the high interest rates which the local authorities have to pay on the slum clearance houses which they build. In many areas, too, there is a shortage of sanitary inspectors, so the inspection of slum clearance houses is restricted.
I am sure that other local authorities have had the same experience as we have had in Stoke-on-Trent, of submitting schemes to the Ministry and finding it taking a very long time to give a decision. I can give an example in the division of my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith), where the council got on with the building of houses, presumably to rehouse people from a slum clearance scheme which we had submitted to the Ministry. The houses were going up, but confirmation of the scheme had not been received, and, consequently we had to use these houses, which should have rehoused people from a slum clearance area, for other people on the general waiting list. We are now trying to find an area in which we can build houses to relieve those people living in a slum clearance area, now that the scheme has been confirmed by the Ministry.
My other point about slum clearance is that in many of the houses in slum clearance areas there live not one but two families, which means that the local authority, if it is to do the job properly, has to rehouse two families instead of one, but receives a subsidy in respect of only one house. What are we to do in circumstances like that? Are we to say to these people, "You must go on living as you have done for many years" or, "Your children must live in


lodgings," leaving the old people holding on to the slum clearance house for an even longer period? This question of the rehousing of two families adds to the problem of slum clearance.
We should also remember another factor. While the slum clearance programme is being restricted—and there is no doubt that it is being restricted—we shall never be able to get on with the job of slum clearance in an imaginative way, the only way we ought to be doing it in 1958, and make it possible for people who have lived in dark, damp houses without pantries, or taps and bathrooms, and sharing lavatory accommodation, to spend at least some of their time living in houses which have running water, bathrooms and modern amenities.
The slum clearance problem has built up over many years. Today, many houses are slums not only because of the physical defects which were built into them, but because no repairs have been done to them for years. They have gradually deteriorated until they have become unfit for human habitation. Unless we are very careful, the same thing will continue through the operation of the Rent Act. What is happening now is that people send in their first form and then, because they are afraid, or because of the trouble involved in doing it, they fail to send in their second form. Consequently, the landlords go on collecting the increased rent and do no repairs. It is humbug to maintain that the Rent Act will ensure the repair of houses.
My next point was referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Wood Green (Mrs. Butler) this afternoon. It is the question of old people. In the city in which I live a company director has provided large sums of money to enable us to build some very fine old people's houses. We shall have about 60 eventually. The corporation has found the land, and the wealthy person to whom I have referred has made a gift of most of the money required. But that by no means meets the needs of the many old people who are living in old houses, or even council houses.
I believe that it was the Parliamentary Secretary who talked about local authorities carrying out transfers, and rehousing old people in smaller houses in order to free three-bedroom houses for larger families. I must remind the Minister that

when we were discussing the Housing Repairs and Rents Bill and the Rent Bill, hon. Members on this side put down Amendments seeking to compel landlords to do something about transfers, and in each case the Tory Party voted against them. It is no good the Tories saying that we should do it in the case of local authorities if they are not prepared to see it done by private enterprise as well.
If old people are to be moved from a three-bedroom house into a smaller house, that smaller house must be in existence, and the only way in which we can ensure its existence is by the Ministry making it much more attractive and possible by way of increased subsidies, for local authorities to build more of these houses for old people.
My next point concerns our general building programme. One of my hon. Friends has pointed out that in the years immediately after the war we faced a very difficult problem. We had to contend with bomb damage, a shortage of houses, a lack of schools, hospitals and factory buildings, all of which we needed if we were to re-establish our industries. The Labour Government faced all those problems and, at the same time, did a very good job in their house building programme. If the Parliamentary Secretary or any other hon. Member opposite wants to tell the story, let him tell it in the true light of the facts and not hide the difficulties which presented themselves.
In Stoke-on-Trent we have a general housing waiting list of between 8,000 and 10,000 people. It is a live waiting list. Periodically we ask the people on the list to let us know whether they are still interested in obtaining a council house. We were one of the county boroughs who had a very good housing programme. We built 2,500 houses a year, and this year we shall build between 250 or 300 for slum clearance, and none for general letting. I do not want the Minister to say, "You could do all this if you had a differential rent scheme", or the hon. Member for Crosby to say, "You could do this if you turned out the folks with a good income who are living in council houses." The number of those people whom we could turn out would be so small as to contribute nothing to the programme.

Mr. Page: The hon. Lady admits that there are some.

Mrs. Slater: I do not admit that there are any in my city, but I am saying that the hon. Member's argument is a very feeble one. It is an attempt to divert attention—by the use of a red herring, which will receive Press publicity—from the real problem which exists in every local authority.

Mr. Lindgren: A blue herring.

Mrs. Slater: It does not matter what colour it is; it is a herring drawn across our path.
In each local authority a problem arises because many people who have got married have had to live with their parents, and now have children, which entitle them to a large number of points on the waiting list. But when they go to their councillor, or Member of Parliament, they have to be told, "We have a Tory Government, and we cannot possibly supply you with a house because of Tory policy." It is Tory policy which has stopped the subsidies on general housebuilding, and has put up the interest rates, thus making it impossible for local authorities to build large numbers of houses for the general letting programme.
This means that we are condemning old people, who have reared one family, to have another family growing up on their hearth. We are also condemning young people to live in a house which is not their own, and condemning the children to suffer all kinds of disabilities. On Saturday, a family came to see me. The girl of the family has passed her 11-plus examination. She is living in a house with four adults. It is a two-bedroom house, and she cannot possibly be expected to do her homework and study properly in those circumstances. The child is penalised because she lives in overcrowded and unhealthy conditions and because she has no room to play and be free to grow up as we like children to grow up. She will also be penalised when she gets an opportunity to go to a grammar school, because she will not have the same facilities for studying as the other grammar school boys and girls have.
There is another factor that must be considered. Many people who are suffering from ill-health are compelled to live in overcrowded conditions. My local authority has a rule that if the local medical officer of health certifies a person

as suffering from tuberculosis, or a disease which warrants his rehousing, we do our best to rehouse him. But I live in an area where pneumoconiosis and chest trouble is very extensive. If such people, who are hardly able to get their breath, have to live and sleep in a bedroom with three or four other people, we are condemning those others to sleep and live in unhealthy conditions.
Because of the restrictions placed upon it the local authority cannot tell our pneumoconiosis patients that they stand a chance of getting a house; they must have tuberculosis before they can get a house.

Dr. Barnett Stross: My hon. Friend may note that these advanced cases of pneumoconiosis nearly always have an infective basis of tuberculosis, and overcrowding spreads tuberculosis.

Mrs. Slater: That is so. Any Government which claim to have a social conscience ought to be concerned with the question of ill people being condemned to live in bad conditions.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) mentioned the question of the building industry. In Stoke-on-Trent, owing to the restrictions on local authority house building, a very real problem has grown up because of the number of building workers who are unable to obtain employment. In reply to a Question by one of my hon. Friends last week the Minister said that there were not very many building workers who were unemployed, but if the history of the last few years is examined it is clear that many building workers have been forced to go into other trades, for which they have not been trained and in which they have not the same skill.
In Stoke, we persuaded the large brick-making firms—who were not very friendly to the Socialists at the time—to modernise their brick factories so that we could obtain an adequate supply of bricks. At present, one of the largest of those firms is having to slow down its work because it is continually stacking up the bricks which we persuaded it to manufacture. We have a good training scheme for building workers at our technical college. Are we to say that we now have no work for these follows and cannot go on with


that scheme? What are we to do for those people whom we have made unemployed because of the housing policy of the Government?
It is about time that the Government realised that the claims which have been made today, both by the Parliamentary Secretary and the other hon. Members opposite who have spoken, do not hold water, and that thousands of families who are now demanding the same chance of decent housing conditions as the better-off people have always had are realising that they can no longer depend upon a Tory Government for salvation.

6.13 p.m.

Mr. G. Lindgren: The Tory Party has never been interested in or concerned about the housing position of our people. That fact has never been more evidenced than this afternoon. This is the first time during the debate that there have been as many as three hon. Members sitting on the opposite benches. One of those—the hon. Member for Hitchin (Mr. Maddan)—has only recently entered the Chamber.

Mr. Gurden: I counted five hon. Members on this side of the Committee some time ago.

Mr. Lindgren: That may be so, but the hon. Member's facts are so wrong.

Mr. Gurden: They were present.

Mr. Lindgren: They were not obvious to me. When the hon. Member for Hitchin came in, there was a hurried consultation between the Whip and the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) to see whether they could get anybody to step into the breach if my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Mrs. Slater) sat down early.

Mr. Page: The hon. Member did not hear what I was saying to my right hon. Friend. It was not that at all.

Mr. Lindgren: It is fairly obvious that the interest of the Tory Party in housing is evidenced by the number of hon. Members on the benches opposite today.
It is equally true that we now have a new phase of Tory Party policy. Hon. Members opposite do not now seek to try to justify what they are doing, or stand by their own policy. What they now do

—sometimes on instructions from the Conservative Central Office—is to take up the Labour Party policy and attack that or, as they have done this afternoon, make completely unsupported statements about wealthy persons living in council houses. It is obviously the Tory Party line to refer to people with £5,000 a year income living in council houses. I notice that, despite all the cases he mentioned, the hon. Member for Crosby had not the courage to mention one in Crosby. I say quite frankly that I just do not believe that those cases exist.

Mr. Page: I gather that the hon. Gentleman is informing me that I told the Committee a pack of lies.

Mr. Lindgren: I did not say that.

Mr. Page: If such cases exist, does the hon. Gentleman support a state of affairs in which such people live in council houses?

Mr. Lindgren: I do not believe that there is anybody earning £5,000 a year who is living in a council house. We have had this before. Two or three years ago the Daily Express had a photograph and an article about council house tenants in Welwyn Garden City having Rolls-Bentleys. The photograph showed a Rolls-Bentley outside a council house in Guessens Road, Welwyn Garden City, but when inquiries were made it was found that the man living there was chauffeur to somebody in I.C.I. There has been reference to a company director at Theydon Bois owning an aeroplane. When I was at the Ministry of Civil Aviation there were only two private owners of aircraft in the country.

Mr. Page: That is rather a long time ago.

Mr. Lindgren: There are no private owners of aircraft in this country. Even the small private aircraft are owned by clubs or by business organisations, and are charges against the business organisations, and the hon. Gentleman knows it.
This afternoon we have had quite a robust speech from the Parliamentary Secretary. Far be it from me to complain when any hon. Member opposite gets a little rough, because it is not unknown for me to indulge in rough exchanges from time to time. What has not been admitted by either the Parliamentary


Secretary or his two hon. Friends who have spoken is that it is only because private enterprise failed that local authorities ever came into house building.

Mr. Gurden: indicated dissent.

Mr. Lindgren: The hon. Gentleman shakes his head. I understand from my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, All Saints (Mr. D. Howell) that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak was once a member of the Birmingham City Council. If that is so, I should have thought he would have known that there was no housing legislation prior to the 1914–18 war. It was only because following that war it was unprofitable for speculative builders and landowners to build houses for people at rents they could afford that local authorities came into it at all.
Local government in this country has only two functions. One is to provide for a need where private enterprise fails to do so; the other is to guard consumers against fraud, where private enterprise does provide for a need. Those are the only two functions of local government in this country, and local government came into housing to meet a need which private enterprise failed to meet. That has been proved by the Parliamentary Secretary this afternoon. What is he saying? He says. "We are going to local authorities to get them to provide houses for old people as quickly as they can." Why does he not go to private enterprise to provide houses for old people? He does not do so because he knows that private enterprise could not provide them at a profit. That is the reason why the Government are trying to slow down local authority housing, because local authority building has improved the living standards of our people.
What a scandalous record this Government have got. I hope that I shall get some interjections as I proceed, provided they do not take me beyond the time at which I wish to conclude to enable the Minister to reply to the debate. The scandalous record of this Government is that they have reduced the quality and quantity of housing and, at the same time, have increased its cost.

Mr. Page: May I interject there, since the hon. Gentleman has invited us to do so? How does he calculate that the

Government have reduced the quantity of houses?

Mr. Lindgren: Because there are now fewer houses being built for the general need than at any previous time.

Mr. Page: That does not reduce the quantity in the country. It certainly could not reduce the quantity if 300,000 houses a year are being built instead of 200,000.

Mr. Lindgren: But there are not 300,000 houses a year being built. Even if they are, those that are being built by private enterprise are not meeting the housing needs of our people.

Mr. Page: Nor were the 200,000 houses a year under the Labour Government.

Mr. Lindgren: They were making a contribution towards it. Let us look at what the Government have done. They have reduced the subsidy rates applying to local authority houses, and increased interest rates so that all council houses, even those built in 1922 and 1923 under the Chamberlain Act, have had their rents increased, as a result of the Government's attitude, from 10s. to £1 a week. What a grand achievement of this Government, to have saddled the tenants of houses built in 1922 and 1923 with an extra £1 a week rent!
That has happened because local authorities, in attempting to maintain some standard of progress in providing housing, have had to spread the cost—again at the recommendation of the Government—over all their existing housing pool. For a period we have been able to maintain the rate of local authority building because those living in houses built twenty and thirty years ago have had to pay part of the rent of some of those occupying houses recently built.
It is not always admitted by hon. Members opposite, but 1 per cent. interest costs 6s. a week on the rent, and at the present time no local authority can build a house without having first to face 39s. a week interest charges, apart from loan repayment costs on materials, land and everything else. Because local authorities can no longer pass those extra charges on to existing tenants, they have had to cease their general-need building programme.
Neither of the two hon. Members opposite who have spoken has admitted


that the general demand still exists. My hon. Friend the Member for Feltham (Mr. Hunter) recounted an experience which is common to those on this side, and if hon. Members opposite were truthful they would admit it was common to them if they hold "surgeries" in their constituencies. At all my "surgeries" the greatest number of cases I have to handle are concerned with persons requiring housing. The Government are doing nothing whatever about it. In my district local authorities are no longer giving further contracts for housing because of the extra cost now involved, and I have newspaper cuttings to prove that if it is challenged.
The Government have not only increased housing costs, but lowered standards. Before the war the council house was a joke. When music-hall and wireless comedians got tired of joking about mothers-in-law they generally went on to the council house joke, and make remarks which it would be unparliamentary for me to repeat here. Because of this, during the war, when the Tories were frightened, they promised that after the war everything would be better, and, recognising that pre-war housing standards, even local authority housing standards, were not what they ought to have been, they set up a committee to inquire into post-war housing standards and to make recommendations.
No doubt because of his great knowledge of working-class conditions, the Tories appointed the Earl of Dudley as chairman of a committee. He and his committee did a first-class job, and the Dudley Report and its recommendations became popularly known as the "Dudley Housing Standards". The war-time Coalition Government accepted the Dudley Report, and the Labour Government of 1945–51, to their everlasting credit, implemented that Report. The houses which were built under that Government are a credit to the building trades workers, building contractors, local authorities and the Labour Government.
What has happened since? The present Government have debased housing standards, and houses are now being built at a lower standard than those being built by local government in 1937–38. There is a lower standard of floor space, ceiling height, construction, fitments, siting and density. People are now charged twice

the rent for a commodity only half as good. Of course, the Government are not concerned about housing standards. The more the Government can debase them the better they like it. Between the wars local government fought to get the opportunity to build houses 10 to the acre, and we finally achieved that in the 1936 Housing Act. From 1936 to 1939 local government housing was at 10 to 12 to the acre. What has been happening under the Government since 1951? They have been building houses which are almost rabbit hutches again, 16 and 17 to the acre.

Mr. Page: We have, of course, heard this story many times before. The hon. Gentleman has probably heard the answer to it, but may I repeat it? Was it not his right hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Dalton) who advocated what the hon. Gentleman is now terming "rabbit hutches", and sent the plans out to local authorities before the present Government took office?

Mr. Lindgren: No, he did not. It is true that during the time my right hon. Friend was Minister there was a revision of suggested plans by the Minister if local authorities liked to adopt it; but there was no forcing of local authorities, as under this Government, to debase standards, even to the extent of reducing ceiling heights.
Do the hon. Gentleman and his friends live in houses with bedrooms only 7 feet high? Of course they do not. The Government are forcing building at 17 to the acre on the argument that local authority housing is eating up agricultural land. It is hon. Gentlemen opposite, who live in houses one, two and three to the acre, not council house tenants at 10 to the acre, who are eating up agricultural land. It is the hon. Member for Crosby and his friends, with a nice bit of parkland round their houses, who are eating up agricultural land.

Mr. Page: May I invite the hon. Gentleman to visit my nice bit of parkland in Highgate, two yards by two yards in area?

Mr. Lindgren: The hon. Gentleman lives in Highgate when the House is sitting and goes out into the country at weekends when the House is not sitting.

Mr. Page: I do not live out in the country.

Mr. Lindgren: The present situation is that the interest charges make rents dear, lack of subsidies makes rents dear, construction standards are low, and housing density is higher than it has been since the inter-war years.

Mr. Gurden: May I remind the hon. Gentleman that his colleagues from the Birmingham City Council would not agree at all that present housing standards are lower? They say they are building houses of a better standard than the Tories built.

Mr. Lindgren: I am not going to start arguments about the City of Birmingham. Generally speaking, the standards of house-construction are lower. Even now, I doubt very much whether the Birmingham City Council is building new houses to the Dudley standard. If it is, good luck to it. I commend it very much indeed.
Much has been said, especially by the hon. Member for Crosby, about the need for people to own their own houses, but nine out of ten people cannot do so, unless they are like the hon. Member for Crosby and the rest of the Government supporters. There is not a bricklayer, carpenter or plasterer in the country, although they build houses for other people, who could ever have one of their own because they could not undertake an obligation to pay for it during a minimum of twenty years.
A prospective house purchaser ought to be able to guarantee to the building society or local authority that his circumstances are not likely to change for the worse during that period. Only a few persons are in a position to give it, such as local government officers, schoolteachers, bank clerks and the like. Perhaps even under a Tory Government, persons to whom the hon. Member for Crosby referred whose family income may be as much as £30 per week——

Mr. Ede: May I point out to my hon. Friend that many schoolteachers have had to reject offers of promotion because they could not face the problem of disposing of their houses, which they had been attempting to buy, and getting another in the place to which they were to be moved?

Mr. Lindgren: I quite agree with my right hon. Friend. That is another reason. It applies to my colleagues in the railway service. We undertook to accept transfer anywhere when we entered the railway service, but we could not buy a house unless we were prepared to sell it again quickly at a loss and move somewhere else. Nine out of ten people who matter, and who produce the nation's wealth, just cannot undertake the obligation of buying a house because they cannot give the guarantee. Good luck to those who can, who have a secure job and can meet their commitments for twenty years. The Government have made it more difficult even for them than any other Government ever did.
A tragic case was brought to my notice the other day of a man who bought a house in London in 1946, when the rate of interest was 3¼ per cent. He had to borrow £2,500 on the house. The interest has now gone up to 6 per cent. and he could not pay the extra 35s. per week. I took his case up with the building society, which was reasonable and was prepared to meet his need. To meet the extra interest charge, he has to pay the mortgage and the arrears which have accrued over the past twelve months for an extra fifteen years. He will be 75 years of age before he has finished paying for this mortgage, because instead of a mortgage for twenty years he now has a mortgage for thirty-five years.
That is what the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends have done in the matter of house purchase. Can any Government supporter say that it is prudent for a young man to saddle himself for twenty or thirty years with a mortgage at 6½ per cent., even if he could get it at that rate? The right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends talk about house ownership, but the facts are there. Building societies may be right in so doing, but they just will not lend money upon pre-1914 property in any quantity which permits its purchase.
One of the most serious results of the policy of the Government is the extent to which unemployment is rising within the building industry. The industry always suffered from intermittent unemployment every year, and there was a tendency for workers to drift away and be dispersed into other industries. Government supporters who talk about the


housing programme do not admit that one of the first things we did in 1945 was to reamalgamate the building trade. We got together the labourers and builders, and we got the brickworks and cement factories going. We had to build up the labour force within the industry. Employers and trade unions were cooperative in the development of apprenticeship schemes and the acceptance of dilutee training, against a guarantee of continuity of work.
The Government now face unemployment in the building industry. Building trade work is going out. What sensible father or mother will encourage a boy to become a bricklayer, carpenter or plumber, instead of going into an industry in which there is continuity of employment? We shall not have the kind of building industry in future which we ought to have. There are other industrial rumblings. A big contributory factor in the present industrial unrest lies at the feet of, or on the heads of, the righ hon. Gentleman and his predecessors in the Ministry of Housing and Local Government. That is true in particular of the present Minister. Increasing rent by £1 a week, whether for accommodation under a private landlord or in a council house, means that the tenant must get increased wages or suffer a reduced standard of living.
It cannot be very pleasant for the present Minister of Housing and Local Government to know that he is the most hated man in politics today. He cannot enjoy that. He smiles, but it is a very poor smile. He has been the willing tool of a discredited Government. It is about time that he resigned and got his colleagues to resign, so that we can have a Government on those benches concerned about the health, welfare and well-being of the people and not, as are the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends, with profits for the financier, the landlord and the jerry-builder.

6.39 p.m.

The Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs (Mr. Henry Brooke): The hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Lindgren), who has spoken so charmingly about me, made two interventions in this debate of equal value. The first was when he sought to counter an argument in the brilliant and effective speech of the

Parliamentary Secretary by alleging that it was unfair to talk in terms of net rents. He said that one could give a proper impression only if one used figures on gross rents.
Even on this point the Labour Party appears to be divided. I will quote to him what his right hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) said in July, 1949, because it is of some interest. The right hon. Gentleman said:
I am talking about a net rent; I suggest … it is always better to talk about net rents than gross rents, because putting in the rate amount always falsifies the figures".[OFFICIAL REPORT. 4th July, 1949; Vol. 466, c. 1821.]
On that occasion, the hon. Member for Wellingborough was one hundred per cent, wrong.
He surpassed his own record in his closing speech, his second intervention, when, a few minutes ago, he told us that nine people out of ten could not afford to own their own houses. Had he made any serious study of the housing situation, he would know that three people out of every ten in this country already do own their own houses.

Mr. Lindgren: The right hon. Gentleman really must not do this. I made an interjection in the speech of the Parliamentary Secretary. I agree that the figure is three out of ten, but I was talking about people on the housing-need list. The general situation is that there are 14 million houses, 4 million are owner-occupied and 10 million are rented. It is four to ten.

Mr. Brooke: It is not possible for me to know what goes on secretly in the hon. Gentleman's own mind. The fact is that on this occasion he was 200 per cent. wrong.
This debate was presumably asked for to damage the position of the Government, but it has revealed that the Government have hardly any case to answer. One week hence the borough council elections will take place. If the debate was asked for by the Opposition as a preliminary shot in that battle, it has unquestionably misfired. The whole Labour Party in the country ought to know how slender has been the attendance at the debate, proving beyond doubt that there is no fire behind the smokescreen that has been put up by the Opposition.
The difficulty facing the Opposition is that they always have around their necks the millstone of 1945–51. That lamentable record of theirs is hard to get away from. As I said the other day, Socialism always means suffering, and in those days, with a vengeance, it did. What hon. Gentlemen opposite have been saying today is, "Give us another chance and we will do better next time". It is worth looking at the practical suggestions which they have put forward during the debate.
They have sought to explain to the House and to the country that the reason for their relative failure on that last occasion, in comparison with what the Conservative Government have accomplished, is that they were too busy on war-damage repairs. At the end of their six-year term of office, their leader told the public that they could not build more than 200,000 houses a year. Within two years, we were building at the rate of 300,000 houses a year. The policy which animates our housing programme at the moment is that housing must play its part in the battle against inflation, because to counter inflation is the primary domestic duty of any responsible Government at the present time. We are succeeding in doing that.
We are keeping building prices stable. They have been stable for a considerable period. The Committee may like to know of the success in this field of the policy of the fixed-price tender system which was initiated by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Works last year. Local authorities, encouraged by my Department, are now getting more than 50 per cent. of all their housing contracts placed on the basis of the fixed-price tender. I have no doubt whatever that that is economical from the ratepayers' point of view and that it is to the interest of the public and of the building industry.
The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) questioned one or two of the figures which my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary or I had used on various occasions. He wanted to know what I meant by a figure of 14s. 1d. as the average rent of a three-bedroomed house in county boroughs. He thought he detected the source of it in a booklet he had with him. I am sorry he had to do those researches. Had he asked me I would

gladly have let him know where the figure came from—not from his booklet, even though the amount of 14s. 1d. may appear in it. The figure I quoted of 14s. 1d. was based on information collected by my Department, and it was information as at 31st March, 1956. That was why, when I was speaking in the debate last November, I said that that was the position "last year".

Mr. Mitchison: This is, of course, the municipal treasurers who come from county boroughs. It is important to get it right. They give two extremes. They give them for a year later than the right hon. Gentleman's figure. One is 14s. 1d., the other 31s. 1d. May we take it there was a rise from 14s. 1d. to somewhere halfway between these two figures in one year?

Mr. Brooke: One must not take that. The right hon. and learned Gentleman must have forgotten the arithmetic he knew at school. One does not obtain the average simply by adding together the extremes and dividing them.

Mr. Mitchison: I said "somewhere between."

Mr. Brooke: The figure of 14s. 1d. was a true average in March, 1956. The figure is certainly somewhat higher than that today. It is higher than that partly because a number of local authorities have, quite rightly, been revising and reviewing the rents of older property.
I am trying to find out what the Opposition's policy today is, because if they attack the Government they must surely have some policy of their own. I find it ambiguous on the subject of subsidies. The hon. and learned Gentleman gave no clear answer to the Parliamentary Secretary, who inquired and pressed him whether a Labour Government would bring the general needs subsidy back. On this occasion he was ambiguous.

Mr. Mitchison: May I clear the ambiguity, then, if that is what the right hon. Gentleman wants? We shall certainly subsidise housing where necessary. There is no doubt about it. A general needs subsidy is given only where necessary. What I said to the hon. Gentleman, which I will repeat for the right hon. Gentleman, is that it depends on the mess which this Government make of the


economic position of the country how much we shall be able to afford to do, While I am at it, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman to answer the charge which has been made against him of stopping councils from building houses for slum clearance or to meet general need?

Mr. Brooke: The hon. and learned Gentleman's statement re-emphasises what I was saying about the difficulty of ascertaining unambiguously what the Labour Party's policy is. He says now he would subsidise where there was need. On 21st November, 1956, he said:
We think there ought to be subsidised housing, not only for those who stand in sore need of it, but for the citizens of this country as a whole."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st November, 1956; Vol. 560, c. 1794.]
It would seem we are to have subsidies for everybody——

Mr. Mitchison: The right hon. Gentleman asked me a question about the general need subsidy. I answered him.

Mr. Brooke: It appears that since November, 1956, the hon. and learned Gentleman has been listening to Government spokesmen. The hon. and learned Gentleman is improving his own housing policy. I think that that will be a very good thing for the country, because his sole other suggestion in the debate today was that we should bring back building licences. I do not think that that will arouse enthusiasm in any breast, and if that is all that a future Labour Government can do, it certainly will go very little distance to present the people of this country with satisfaction.
The hon. Lady the Member for Wood Green (Mrs. Butler), who always speaks with sincerity on these matters, especially about old people's houses—I always take account of what she says—sought to charge the Government with complacency. Never shall I be complacent about the housing situation. I have seen too much of it. To me the housing shortage has been the heaviest domestic curse on the people of this country since the war, just as unemployment was the heaviest curse in the 'twenties and 'thirties, and I am very proud to have been entrusted for a time with responsibility for this Government's housing policy, which is the most successful in the country's history.
I know the housing problem, too, just as the hon. Lady does in her constituency.

I have known it throughout London, and particularly in my own constituency. Over a large part of the country, as I hope she will grant, the housing shortage has been vastly eased in the past six years, but I am well aware of the continuing difficulties of the big cities, difficulties with which we must ceaselessly contend. One of the problems is lack of sites. There are others. As long as I am Housing Minister, I can assure the hon. Lady housing policy will be pursued with vigour so that those who are suffering from overcrowding or lack of proper and healthy accommodation may be helped.
I was in Birmingham the other day where I saw some shocking slums such as I trusted had been swept off the face of this land. I am glad to hear from my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Gurden) that slum clearance in Birmingham is going well. The only slum clearance drives in this country have been under Conservative Governments. There was the first, begun in 1934, which was cut short by the war in 1939. The other was initiated by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister when he was in my place three or four years ago.
The hon. and learned Member for Kettering—I quote his words—said, "The Government's slum clearance has shown the most lamentable and disappointing results." He supported this interesting statement by giving the Committee an incorrect figure. He told the Committee that he challenged the Parliamentary Secretary, who had said that just on 45,000 unfit houses were demolished last year. The hon. and learned Gentleman said that was wrong; that it was 35,000. Unfortunately for him he was confusing 1956 with 1957. As my hon. Friend said, the figure last year was just on 45,000.

Mr. Mitchison: What is it this year?

Mr. Brooke: I think the hon. and learned Gentleman had better wait and see what we do, because it will be greatly above 45,000 this year. I have no doubt whatever of that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) raised the point of well-to-do people living in council houses. He will, I am sure, be aware that the selection of tenants is a matter for the local authorities and for local authorities exclusively.


No Minister has any power to direct a local authority as to what tenant it should chose or what tenant it should evict. I must say that I think that the action of a local authority would be quite understandable if it intimated to tenants who could obviously afford to make their own arrangements that by staying on in a council house they were keeping a deserving applicant out of a council house.
It is one of the unfortunate consequences of Socialist pre-1951 policy. It was the Labour Government's refusal to allow enough private building that drove into council houses people who had a genuine housing need but who could have afforded to have solved their problems themselves if they had been able to get a licence to build. Those people moved into council houses then, and they have settled down there at a subsidised rent, and that is a direct consequence of Socialism.
The most fruitful method of approach to this problem is by local authorities adopting the system of differential rents. For a local authority to refuse to adopt any kind of differential system is to favour the wealthier people amongst its tenants and injure the poorer people.
The hon. and learned Gentleman sought to accuse me of not answering questions, but I have in fact already refuted a considerable number of the so-called facts and figures which were adduced in support of the arguments and criticisms from the other side of the Committee.
I have made perfectly clear a counter-inflationary measure, and until inflation is effectively checked and defeated it is necessary to slow down somewhat the council house building programme, but we have so planned it that that programme will be continuing at a very substantial level. We are planning for 100,000 council houses and flats this year, and there is no question whatever that the total output of houses this year and next will be higher than it ever was under a Socialist Government.
My special concern, the Government's special concern, is to make sure that the country is doing enough to meet the needs of the old people. In the years immediately after the war, it was felt, and naturally felt, that we must build

primarily family houses. There were so many married couples with children who urgently needed housing accommodation. Over a large part of the country—not all—that need has now been met——

Hon. Members: No.

Mr. David Jones (The Hartlepools): Where?

Mr. Brooke: —and the Government are encouraging local authorities, with, I trust, the support of both sides of the Committee, to give increasing attention now to building one-roomed bungalows and flatlets for the benefit of the old people. We want a shift in favour of the one-bedroomed dwelling, and that is why we are glad we have already worked it up to 23 per cent. of all local authority building.
The hon. Lady the Member for Wood Green quoted, I think, £1,300 as the cost of providing for old people. It is in order to further this campaign and to help local authorities and people of good will everywhere that the Government have today published this booklet called
"Flatlets for Old People". There are copies in the Vote Office, and I hope hon. Members on both sides will collect these booklets and will study them. I think they will find the contents fascinatingly interesting, and the hon. Lady will see on page 12 that the type of designs which are recommended here for old people's flatlets work out at a cost, exclusive of site works but inclusive of central heating and hot water system, not of £1,300 but of between £830 and £930.
This booklet suggests ways of constructing purpose-built flatlets for old people at more reasonable prices than almost any organisation, public or private, has yet secured. I hope that hon. Members will bring it to the notice of people in their constituencies. I have intimated to housing authorities throughout the country that in due course I shall be asking what they are doing about building for old people, about conversions for old people and about meeting the needs of old people. The Government believe that slum clearance and building and conversions for old people should be in the forefront of our national housing efforts. If the Opposition want to censure us for that, they are welcome. They will condemn themselves.

Mr. Mitchison: I beg to move, That Item Class V, Vote 1 (Ministry of Housing and Local Government), be reduced by £5.

Question put:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 222, Noes 279.

Division No. 104.]
AYES
[7.0 p.m.


Albu, A. H.
Herbison, Miss M.
Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
Hewitson, Capt. M.
Pargiter, G. A.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Hobson, C. R. (Keighley)
Parker, J.


Awbery, S. S.
Holman, P.
Parkin, B. T.


Bacon, Miss Alice
Houghton, Douglas
Paton, John


Baird, J.
Howell, Charles (Perry Barr)
Peart, T. F.


Balfour, A.
Howell, Denis (All Saints)
Pentland, N.


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Prentice, R. E.


Bence, C. R. (Dunbartonshire, E.)
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Benn, Hn. Wedgwood (Bristol, S.E.)
Hunter, A. E.
Price, philips (Gloucestershire, W.)


Benson, Sir George
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Probert, A. R.


Beswick, Frank
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Proctor, W. T.


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Pursey, Cmdr. H.


Blackburn, F.
Irving, Sydney (Dartford)
Rankin, John


Boardman, H.
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Redhead, E. C.


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Janner, B.
Reeves, J.


Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S.W.)
Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.
Reid, William


Boyd, T. C.
Jeger, George (Goole)
Rhodes, H.


Brockway, A. F.
Jeger, Mrs.Lena(Holbn &amp; St.Pncs.S.)
Robens, Rt. Hon. A.


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Johnson, James (Rugby)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Burke, W. A.
Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Burton, Miss F. E.
Jones, David (The Hartlepools)
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Jones, Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Ross, William


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.


Callaghan, L. J.
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Short, E. W.


Carmichael, J.
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Kenyon, C.
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Champion, A. J.
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)


Chapman, W. D.
King, Dr. H. M.
Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke, N.)


Chetwynd, G. R.
Lawson, G. M.
Snow, J. W.


Clunie, J.
Ledger, R. J.
Sorensen, R. W.


Coldrick, W.
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead)
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Sparks, J. A.


Collins, V.J.(Shoreditch &amp; Finsbury)
Lever, Harold (Cheetham)
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Lewis, Arthur
Stonehouse, John


Cove, W. G.
Lindgren, G. S.
Stones, W. (Consett)


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Lipton, Marcus
Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.


Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Logan, D. G.
Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)


Darling, George (Hillsborougn)
McAlister, Mrs. Mary
Stross,Dr.Barnett(Stoke-on-Trent,C.)


Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)
MacColl, J. E.
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.


Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)
McGhee, H. G.
Swingler, S. T.


Deer, G.
McGovern, J.
Sylvester, G. O.


de Freitas, Geoffrey
McInnes, J.
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Delargy, H. J.
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


Diamond, John
McLeavy, Frank
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Donnelly, D. L.
MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Dugdale, Rt. Hn. John (W. Brmwch)
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)


Dye, S.
Mahon, Simon
Thornton, E.


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Timmons, J.


Edelman, M.
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfd, E.)
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Mann, Mrs. Jean
Usborne, H. C.


Edwards W. J. (Stepney)
Mason, Roy
Viant, S. P.


Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Mayhew, C. P.
Weitzman, D.


Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)
Mellish, R. J.
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Fernyhough, E.
Messer, Sir F.
West, D. G.


Fletcher, Eric
Mikardo, Ian
Wheeldon, W. E.


Forman, J. C.
Mitchison, G. R.
White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Moody, A. S.
Wigg, George


Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.
Morrison,Rt.Hn.Herbert(Lewis'm,S.)
Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.


Gibson, C W.
Mort, D. L.
Willey, Frederick


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Moss, R.
Williams, David (Neath)


Greenwood, Anthony
Moyle, A.
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Ab'til[...]ery)


Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)


Grey, C. F.
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. (Derby, S.)
Williams, W. T. (Barons Court)


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
O'Brien, Sir Thomas
Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)


Griffiths, William (Exchange)
Oliver, G. H.
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Oram, A. E.
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Hamilton, W. W.
Orbach, M.
Woof, R. E.


Hannan, W.
Oswald, T.
Yates, V. (Ladywood)


Harrison, J. (Nottingham, N.)
Owen, W. J.
Younger, Rt. Hon. K.


Hastings, S.
Padley, W. E.
Zilliacus, K.


Hayman, F. H.
Paget, R. T.



Healey, Denis
Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Rwly Regis)
Palmer, A. M. F.
Mr. Popplewell and Mr. Pearson.




NOES


Agnew, Sir Peter
Gibson-Watt, D
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)


Aitken, W. T.
Glover, D.
Lucas, P. B. (Brentford &amp; Chiswick)


Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)
Glyn, Col. Richard H.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh


Alport, C. J. M.
Godber, J. B.
McAdden, S. J.


Amory, Rt. Hn. Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Goodhart, Philip
Macdonald, Sir Peter


Arbuthnot, John
Gough, C. F. H.
Mackeson, Brig. Sir Harry


Astor, Hon. J. J.
Gower, H. R.
McKibbin, Alan


Atkins, H. E.
Graham, Sir Fergus
Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)


Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.
Grant, W. (Woodside)
McLaughlin, Mrs. P.


Baldwin, A. E.
Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R. (Nantwich)
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John


Balniel, Lord
Green, A.
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy (Lancaster)


Barlow, Sir John
Gresham Cooke, R.
McLean, Neil (Inverness)


Barter, John
Grimond, J.
MacLeod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, W.)


Beamish, Col. Tufton
Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)
MacLeod, John (Ross &amp; Cromarty)


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)


Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Gurden, Harold
Maddan, Martin


Bidgood, J. C.
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.


Biggs-Davison, J. A.
Hare, Rt. Hon. J. H.
Marlowe, A. A. H.


Bingham, R. M.
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Marples, Rt. Hon. A. E.


Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Marshall, Douglas


Bishop, F. P.
Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon)
Mathew, R.


Black, C. W.
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Mawby, R. L.


Body, R. F.
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)
Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.


Boothby, Sir Robert
Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)
Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.


Bossom, Sir Alfred
Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Molson, Rt. Hon. Hugh


Bowen, E. R. (Cardigan)
Harvie-Watt, Sir George
Moore, Sir Thomas


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A.
Head, Rt. Hon. A. H.
Morrison, John (Salisbury)


Boyle, Sir Edward
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles


Braine, B. R.
Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. C.
Nabarro, G. D. N.


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Henderson-Stewart, Sir James
Nairn, D. L. S.


Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry
Hesketh, R. F.
Neave, Airey


Brooman-White, R. C.
Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.
Nicholls, Harmar


Browne, J. Nixon (Craigton)
Hill, Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)
Nicholson, Sir Godfrey (Farnham)


Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
Nicolson, N. (B'n'm'th, E. &amp; Chr'ch)


Burden, F. F. A.
Hirst, Geoffrey
Noble, Comdr. Rt. Hon. Allan


Butcher, Sir Herbert
Holland-Martin, C. J.
Nugent, G. R. H.


Butler, Rt. Hn.R.A.(Saffron Walden)
Holt, A. F.
O'Neill,Hn.Phelim (Co. Antrim, J.)


Campbell, Sir David
Hope, Lord John
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. W. D.


Carr, Robert
Hornby, R. P.
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.


Channon, Sir Henry
Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.
Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)


Chichester-Clark, R.
Horobin, Sir Ian
Osborne, C.


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)
Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)
Page, R. G.


Cooke, Robert
Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)
Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)


Cooper, A. E.
Howard, John (Test)
Partridge, E.


Cooper-Key, E. M.
Hulbert, Sir Norman
Peel, W. J.


Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Hurd, A. R.
Peyton, J. W. W.


Corfield, Capt. F. V.
Hutchison, Michael Clark(E'b'gh, S.)
Pickthorn, K. W. M.


Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark(E'b'gh, W.)
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Crosthwaite-Eyre,Col. O. E.
Hyde, Montgomery
Pilkington, Capt. R. A.


Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)
Hylton-Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry
Pitman, I. J.


Crowder, petre (Ruislip—Northwood)
Iremonger, T. L.
Pitt, Miss E. M.


Currie, G. B. H.
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Powell, J. Enoch


Dance, J. C. G.
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)


Davidson, Viscountess
Jennings, Sir Roland (Hallam)
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.


D'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Ramsden, J. E.


Deedes, W. F.
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Rawlinson, Peter


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)
Redmayne, M.


Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Jones, Rt. Hon. Aubrey(Hall Green)
Remnant, Hon. P.


Doughty, C. J. A.
Joseph, Sir Keith
Renton, D. L. M.


Drayson, G. B.
Joynson-Hicks, Hon. Sir Lancelot
Ridsdale, J. E.


du Cann, E. D. L.
Kaberry, D.
Rippon, A. G. F.


Dun[...]an, Sir James
Kerby, Capt. H. B.
Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)


Duthie, W. S.
Kerr, Sir Hamilton
Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)


Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)
Kershaw, J. A.
Robson Brown, Sir William


Elliott,R.W.(Ne'castleuponTyne,N.)
Kimball, M.
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)


Errington, Sir Eric
Lagden, G. W.
Roper, Sir Harold


Erroll, F. J.
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Farey-Jones, F. W.
Langford-Holt, J. A.
Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.


Finlay, Graeme
Leather, E. H. C.
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.


Fisher, Nigel
Leburn, W. G.
Sharples, R. C.


Fletcher-Cooke, C.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Shepherd, William


Fort, R.
Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)


Foster, John
Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T.
Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)


Fraser, Hon. John (Stone)
Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)
Spearman, Sir Alexander


Fraser, Sir Ian (M'cmbe &amp; Lonsdale)
Lindsay, Martin (Solihull)
Speir, R. M.


Freeth, Denzil
Linstead, Sir H. N.
Spence, H. R. (Aberdeen, W.)


Galbraith, Hon. T. C. D.
Llewellyn, D. T.
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard


Gammans, Lady
Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Stevens, Geoffrey


Garner-Evans, E. H.
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)


George, J. C. (Pollok)
Longden, Gilbert




Low, nt. Hon. Sir Toby








Steward, Sir William (Woolwich, W.)
Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin
Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)


Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm
Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)
Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold


Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)
Tilney, John (Wavertree)
Webbe, Sir H.


Studholme, Sir Henry
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.
Whitelaw, W. S. I.


Summers, Sir Spencer
Tweedsmuir, Lady
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Vane, W. M. F.
Wills, G. (Bridgwater)


Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Teeling, W.
Vickers, Miss Joan
Wood, Hon. R.


Temple, John M.
Wade, D. W.
Woollam, John Victor


Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)
Yates, William (The Wrekin)


Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'Iebone)



Thompson, R. (Croydon, S.)
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Derek
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. P.
Wall, Patrick
Mr. Oakshott and Mr. Bryan.


Original Question again proposed.


Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

POLIOMYELITIS VACCINE (SUPPLY)

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a further sum, not exceeding £30, be granted to Her Majesty, towards defraying the charges for the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1959, for the following services connected with the Supply of Poliomyelitis Vaccine, namely:—


Civil Estimates, 1958–59



£


Class V. Vote 4 (Ministry of Health)
10


Class V, Vote 5 (National Health Service, England and Wales)
10


Class V, Vote 11 (National Health Service, Scotland)
10


Total
£30

7.12 p.m.

Dr. Edith Summerskill: The reason why we have asked for this debate today is to focus attention on the failure of the Minister of Health to make the necessary provisions to safeguard certain sections of the population against poliomyelitis. I have no need to remind the Committee of the serious nature of this disease, which can have fatal consequences, but probably the attention of the ordinary person is drawn to the fact that it can cause permanent paralysis of a most crippling nature.
No one, I think, will charge me or hon. Members on this side with trying to make party capital—[An HON. MEMBER: "Oh."] I expected that. If the hon. Member listens to me, he will perhaps agree that I am right. Nobody can charge us on this side with trying to make party capital out of this problem.
If hon. Members look at the Questions on poliomyelitis which have been put over the weeks they will see that they have come from both sides of the House. They have been put to the Minister for the purpose of eliciting information. The situation has been aggravated by the Minister's persistent evasion, his dialectical replies to Questions and his persistent reluctance to clarify the matter, although, now, the facts are known by a large number of people who have investigated them.
If there are any hon. Members who dissent when I say that we have endeavoured always to try to elicit information in the fairest manner, I direct their attention to a newspaper which has always supported the Government. After

Question Time last Monday week, when the Minister failed to respond to Questions on the Order Paper—Questions which should have elicited a statement in the House—The Times, two days later said:
The Minister of Health can scarcely be surprised at the criticism which has been aroused by his policy on poliomyelitis vaccine. Even the statement issued by his Department yesterday will hardly assuage the despondency—if not alarm—caused by the news of inadequate supplies made public during the past few days. Indeed, yesterday's statement is typical of that lack of candour which has succeeded vacillation as the main characteristic of ministerial statements on the subject.
After that, no hon. Member can charge me with having spoken too strongly on the matter.
The Minister certainly cannot plead ignorance of the position, or argue that he has had insufficient warning. There were serious outbreaks of poliomyelitis last summer which should have stimulated his Department to take action. Months ago, hon. Members on both sides—and I am very pleased to see present hon. Members opposite who put Questions over the months on this subject—asked Questions about the availability of vaccine and the programme of inoculation. Let me take two examples. It is, of course, possible to go all over the country and to cite cases in which the medical officer of health, the doctors and, indeed, people generally, feel very strongly about this.
Last summer, in the Borough of Maidstone and surrounding district, there were 116 confirmed cases of the disease, and six deaths, in four months. Is it surprising, therefore, that the people and the medical officer of health have protested that after last year's serious outbreak, they are still in a state of relative unpreparedness? There was a recent protest. As a result, the Ministry sent enough vaccine for 5,000 children, although there are 100,000 in the County of Kent waiting for their course of injections.
Let us consider another place, the congested area of Tottenham. In January this year, the medical officer of health had to write to doctors asking them not to request supplies of the limited amount of vaccine because 2,000 children who had been registered in 1956 and 1957 were still awaiting their first injection. It may be asked whether the Ministry


has undertaken too much. I would say that the scheme which the Minister of Health has failed to implement is the very minimum which Britain can introduce in the light of medical advance in this field.
What have we offered to do? We have offered to immunise children from 2 to 15 years of age and expectant mothers, while other countries have offered to immunise all people under the age of 40. It might be said that this is an extravagant offer, but what are the facts? Two-thirds of the deaths occur among old people, not children. It is clear from that, surely, that our approach can only be regarded as an initial effort. What else have we undertaken to do? Is this over-generous? We have undertaken to give two injections only, the very minimum, while in Canada and the United States three are given.
To make a success of this campaign, it could be argued that publicity and propaganda should be done. Hon. Members will be familiar with the posters on the hoardings when other public health campaigns were being conducted. I have not seen one poster on any hoarding, in any part of the country, drawing the attention of the people to the fact that certain categories should be immunised. The consequence is that only 40 per cent. of the 10 million who were eligible were registered up to the end of February. We should like to know why the Minister has dragged his feet in this respect. There are some doctors who believe that it is because he had not made adequate preparation for securing the vaccine and, therefore, the fewer that applied, the better for his Department's reputation.
While little positive propaganda of that kind has been done, the Minister has invited people to choose between the British vaccine and the Salk. Surely, this invitation to ordinary people, who know nothing about the technicalities of vaccine, can only sow seeds of distrust in their minds. Here again, this approach can limit the demand effectively. If it is true that one of these vaccines is unsafe no one should be injected with it. The fact is that doctors are giving children British or Salk vaccine, whichever is available. There is no question of the doctor saying to himself "I am sure one is safer than the other". If doctors adopt that course why is the vaccine

considered acceptable to the public? Despite all this, the Press has appreciated the serious position, with the result that there is a continuing demand for immunisation as the summer approaches. The Minister should now have in mind provision of enough vaccine to cover the 10 million who are eligible. That will call for at least 20 million doses.
The latest figures we have are those given at the end of last February. Then, of those registered, 571,000 had been given one injection and 2,688,000 were still waiting for the first injection. Thousands more are estimated to have registered in March and April. We still wait to hear the latest figures. Hon. Members on both sides have put Questions to the Minister and this debate is the culmination of a growing demand both here, among the public and the medical profession for the Minister to give top priority to this matter before the summer arrives. Today, one feels that the summer has already arrived.
I will remind the Committee of some of the Questions which have been put. I cannot read all of them, but those I read will show that hon. Members have been interested in this matter over a long period. In December, 1956, my hon. Friend the Member for Willesden, West (Mr. Viant) asked about the availability of the vaccine. He was told by the then Minister of Health simply that two firms were manufacturing it and output was limited. At that time, the end of December, there were already a large number of children registered.
On 18th February, 1957, my hon. Friend asked:
how much poliomyelitis vaccine was sent to local authorities in December, 1956; and how much has been sent to local authorities so far this year.
The Answer was:
Approximately 31 litres; none."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th February. 1957; Vol. 565, c. 13.]
The Answer relating to the first part of the Question could not convey much to hon. Members not accustomed to think of litres, but of doses.
In March, 1957, my hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Mr. Hastings) asked:
Can the Minister give any estimate of the number of children who will be vaccinated before the summer…
with one vaccine or another.
The answer was:
it might be unwise at this stage to give any estimate."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th March, 1957; Vol. 567, c. 31.]
On 15th May the then Minister of Health felt it was time to make a statement. He made a very long statement, in which he said:
The number of notifications of poliomyelitis so far this year has been relatively high. This must be a cause for concern. I am, however, advised that on the basis of past experience it is not possible at this stage to draw any conclusions as to the probable incidence of the disease later in the year.
He went on to say that he was not advised to import vaccine.
I began to feel apprehensive. I had listened to these Questions over the months and I had been persuaded that the Ministry of Health was doing everything in its power, but a year ago, on 15th May, I said to the Minister:
In view of the high number of cases of poliomyelitis already registered in the first four months of the year, that is, before the start of those months which we consider of serious import, could the Minister say approximately when there will be enough vaccine available to vaccinate the 1 million children who were already registered before the extra number now mentioned?
This was a year ago. The Minister said:
As the right hon. Lady will have noticed, I am most anxious not to make forecasts which might prove inaccurate because of production difficulties, but if all goes well it should be possible to complete vaccination of those already registered by the end of this summer."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th May, 1957; Vol.
570, c. 408–9.]
Yet, in 1958 there are large numbers of children who were registered in 1956 who have not yet had their first injection.
How else could the Minister have been made aware of what was happening? In July, 1957, the International Poliomyelitis Conference was held in Geneva. There were some English medical officers of health there. The matter was thrashed out and attention was focused on the need to import vaccine. At that time there was a sharp outbreak of poliomyelitis in this country. Surely that should have focused the attention of the Minister on the need for importing some vaccine. It was clear then that Glaxo and Burroughs Wellcome could not meet the demand.
Despite all this, I believe—the Minister will confirm or deny whether this is accurate—that the initial arrangement for

the purchase from the United States of America was not made until September, 1957. It should be borne in mind that this vaccine takes six months to produce and test. The result of this vacillation, as we know, was that in February this year there were nearly 3 million children of those registered who had not received a single dose, and since then thousands more have been registered.
The administrative muddle has reached the Press. That in itself is significant, because most medical officers of health will endure a great deal before they talk to the Press. The Press often asks them to give what the Press considers human stories. That is quite understandable, but medical officers of health refrain from so doing. This time, because of the administrative muddle, medical officers all over the country have expressed themselves rather forcibly.
The vaccination has been done by local authorities and general practitioners. The arrangements with the parents of the child for two tests and the distribution of the vaccine, which must be kept at a certain temperature, is a very detailed process. The behind-the-scenes chaos in London owing to the failure of supply of vaccine resulted in arrangements being cancelled. On 15th April, the L.C.C. cancelled 15 poliomyelitis clinics, informed the doctors in charge that their services would not be required as there was no vaccine, but, nevertheless, they were to receive the usual fee. There was no mention as to when the vaccine would be available. On 22nd April, only seven days later, another letter was written to them saying
A small supply of vaccine has been received, sufficient to enable a limited number of sessions to be arranged for the week 28th April. The following sessions, which were provisionally cancelled on 15th April, will not take place.
General practitioners have undertaken to do this vaccination during their busiest period, the winter. I think it an understatement to say that they were put to great inconvenience. The single-handed practitioner would have made all arrangements with the mother and child and, at the last moment, would have to cancel the arrangement because no vaccine was available. Very often he gave the first dose, made arrangements with the mother for the second a month hence, and then, because the vaccine was not available, that had to be cancelled.
Of course parents would be concerned as to the effectiveness of the first dose because of the delay. The clerical work for all this was undertaken by the doctor or his wife and it all had to be done by hand. This meant an enormous pressure on the household. I am told that one man in a busy practice in London because he had read that more vaccine was expected, last Monday asked for 14 doses for the second injection for some children. Last night he was informed that he could have seven. Therefore, whatever the Minister may say about the changed situation at the centre today, it has certainly not reached the periphery.
The Minister gave a Written Answer on 21st April. This was the statement which evoked such strong criticism from The Times. Having referred obscurely to the number of litres imported and so avoided the real question about the available supply in terms of doses for those already registered. The Minister went on to say:
There has, however, been some interruption of supplies to local authorities, and consequently of the vaccination programme for a number of causes. These delays in the delivery of vaccine have occurred in each of the four original sources of supply, two British firms, one Canadian and one in the United States of America. In each of the four cases, the cause of delay was different, but in no case was it within the control of or due to the fault of the Government."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st April, 1958; Vol. 586, c. 49.]
That is completely inaccurate. I propose to go through each case and show why.
I have already shown that the Minister failed to order sufficient supplies from the United States soon enough. All advice on this important question was ignored. On 11th April, the United States Public Health Service reported that there was enough surplus vaccine for export to protect 15 million children and there was an abundance of vaccine available even after people up to 40 had to be given three injections. The National Foundation for Infantile Paralysis, in the United States, announced that there was a large exportable surplus of Salk vaccine. It is, therefore, very difficult to believe the Minister's contention that he and the Government were not at fault in their arrangements about the American supply. There was ample vaccine in the United States. The fault was that the Minister failed to arrange in time to have it sent here.
What had the Canadian supplier to say about the Minister's statement? Too often, Ministers make statements at the Box, forgetting that their words are conveyed very quickly to the country about which they are speaking. I turn again to The Times. When one is in opposition and does not have a great Department in which to make inquiries, one has to rely upon inquiries made by correspondents such as The Times correspondent who reported on this matter in the issue of 22nd April. He had made an inquiry from the supplier about whom the Minister was speaking when he said that it was not the Government's fault. If it was not the Government's fault, then it was the supplier's fault.

The Minister of Health (Mr. Derek Walker-Smith): No.

Dr. Summerskill: As the Minister has already said he is dealing with only one supplier in Canada, it is a little difficult to think of a third person who may be involved. However, we may hear of a third reason.
Under the dateline "Ottawa, 21st April, The Times published a report from its correspondent in Canada. The heading was "'Misunderstanding' over delivery". It will be noted that the word "misunderstanding" is in inverted commas. The report goes on:
Commenting on a report from London that a million doses of poliomyelitis vaccine failed to arrive in England in March, Dr. Ferguson, director of the Connaught Laboratories (the Canadian supplies of the vaccine), today expressed the view that there was a misunderstanding in London on this matter. He said that there was a contract for four million doses to be supplied to the United Kingdom before the end of June.
The orders given to suppliers by the Minister's Department are not given orally or over the telephone; there must be written instructions. Dr. Ferguson is quoting from the written instructions to supply before June. Also, presumably, the Minister has a copy of the letter. Instead of telling the House that he was not at fault when the vaccine did not arrive, he really should have said that the Canadian suppliers were given until June.
No doubt, during the last two or three months, the Minister has been sending S.O.S. after S.O.S. to Canada for more, but, of course, this vaccine takes months


to prepare and test. The Canadian suppliers could not respond immediately; they had their own domestic needs to consider. All this led to the evasive replies we received on Monday. If the Minister thinks that I am being too strong in my condemnation, I would direct his attention to the Manchester Guardian of 29th April, which condemned his attitude.
Were the British firms given all the facilities necessary to produce the maximum amount of vaccine in the required time? Producing this vaccine is not easy. It takes six months. Facilities are necessary. Here was something of an exceptional character, and apparently, there were two firms prepared to produce it. We should like to know the details.

Mr. Walker-Smith: To help me answer the right hon. Lady's question, will she be good enough to particularise a little more precisely what sort of facilities she thinks the Government ought to have given to these companies, or either of them?

Dr. Summerskill: The Minister is head of a big Health Department. His Department has all kinds of advisers who can give help on technical matters. He should have said, "My advisers are available. Any equipment you will want, we will try to help you obtain". He should have offered his Department's assistance. My hon. Friend the Member for Barking, very pertinently, asked the Minister, two weeks ago, whether it would not be a good idea for the State to produce this vaccine. The Minister treated my hon. Friend, who has some knowledge of this matter, as though he was making a ridiculous suggestion. He had already come to the House and said that these private suppliers had failed him. Why is it a ridiculous suggestion to put, in this special kind of matter, that the vaccine should be produced by the State?

Mr. Walker-Smith: Because these two companies have as good scientists, technicians, facilities and equipment as can be found anywhere.

Mr. Somerville Hastings: But they have not done it.

Mr. Philip Goodhart: Does the right hon. Lady really suggest that the Government could teach Burroughs Wellcome how to produce this vaccine?

Dr. Summerskill: I find that hon. Members opposite are on the defensive, trying to find an excuse. They ask why we should help firms to produce something which is needed quite desperately by the country. What an astonishing, negative attitude! The Government, through the Ministry of Health, are responsible for immunising children and expectant mothers against the horrible disease of poliomyelitis. I have produced evidence to show that they have failed to do it. They should be the first to say, "If we can help in any way, we are at your disposal." I do not accept the suggestion that each private drug house in this country needs no help or advice at all from any of those who advise the Minister.
The Minister has told the House that some batches of vaccine failed to reach a certain standard. Surely this is a very weak excuse. Everybody with the slightest knowledge of the subject—and the Minister and the drug houses are surrounded with technical advisers—knows that this can be expected. It has happened in other countries, and that is precisely why stringent tests are applied after production—because it is known that these hazards have to be faced. The Wellcome Foundation may have had sickness among the test monkeys, but, as I say, these hazards have to be anticipated. The fact is that, in any case, the initial order given was only large enough to protect 2 million people a year. That was the order given to the Wellcome Foundation—4 million doses, enough to protect 2 million people a year.
The position today is that the Minister is sending out urgent messages to suppliers in an attempt to retrieve the situation. Unfortunately, whatever the amount of vaccine flown here, it will take many weeks before the children are immunised. Even after the detailed arrangements are made, and the first does given, there should be an interval of a month, the optimum period, before the second injection is given and any immunity conferred.
Whatever the nature of the improvised scheme that the Minister may offer us tonight—a scheme that the Minister has had to contrive to cover his neglect—it appears that there will be many thousands of those registered still waiting for immunisation at mid-summer. Indeed,


summer has begun today, and summer is the season for poliomyelitis. There is no time to protect these children before mid-summer. Not only will these children be unprotected, but millions who are eligible but unregistered will be completely unprotected.
I have condemned the Minister, but I feel that I was justified. Furthermore, I feel that my condemnation was supported by facts which cannot be disputed.

7.43 p.m.

The Minister of Health (Mr. Derek Walker-Smith): I welcome the debate unreservedly. I welcome it in particular because it gives an opportunity to deploy the facts about what is inevitably a somewhat technical and complex problem, and I hope to remove some of the misunderstandings on this subject which published comments in various quarters show to be very considerable.
I wish I could say that the speech of the right hon. Lady the Member for Warrington (Dr. Summerskill) had been effective in dispelling some of these misunderstandings. Courtesy and good will prompt me to say so, but honesty, alas, forbids. My only regret is that the Opposition should have deemed this subject, important as it is and much as it is in people's minds, worth half a day's debate instead of a whole day. I regret it all the more because, owing to the complexity of this subject, I shall have necessarily to take up a little time to do justice to the problems involved.
This is a debate about polio and the efforts to combat it. As the Committee will know, in the post-war years the incidence of polio has varied, ranging between a peak of 5,565 paralytic cases in 1950 with 755 deaths to 1,319 cases in 1954, the lowest post-war figure, with only 134 deaths. Last year there were 3,175 cases with 255 deaths. In the first sixteen weeks of this year, there were 331 cases compared with 633 cases last year and 418 in 1956.
The history of the efforts to combat polio by immunisation is very short, starting no further back than 1949. In that year laboratory discoveries made possible the development of a vaccine containing all three types of polio virus grown in tissue culture and killed by formalin. It was not until 1954 that

enough vaccine had been manufactured for field trials to be carried out in the United States. I have quoted those dates to show not only how recent is the development of polio vaccine, but to show that it took nearly five years after the basic laboratory discoveries to manufacture enough vaccine for trials. That surely illustrates very clearly and factually the extreme complexity and difficulty of the manufacturing processes involved.
It is clear from many of the comments made in some quarters that there is a tendency to gross over-simplification. To read some newspaper comments, one would think that making this vaccine was no different from making toothpaste or ice cream, or any other commodity in daily use. With the successful production of the vaccine, it has been possible to introduce a process of inoculation, and I think it would be helpful if I gave a short and, I hope, objective explanation of the factors of immunisation and the risk involved.
Poliomyelitis vaccine does not, of course, give a total or guaranteed immunity in any particular case. It does, however, give a substantial degree of protection, as field trials have shown both here and in the United States. Unhappily, there are some who may develop polio although they have been vaccinated. There are a number of reasons for this. It is hardly ever possible to establish the cause of individual cases. This is not, of course, peculiar to polio vaccination.
There are several possible causes of failure which apply in all forms of preventive inoculation. Perhaps I could mention two. First, the vaccine may be given to the individual when he is already infected and is in the process of incubating the disease. Secondly, the person vaccinated may be constitutionally incapable of reacting to vaccination in the right way to give protection against natural infection.
There is, however, in polio vaccine another consideration that I should mention. A person vaccinated against polio could get the disease if some living virus survived in the particular dose of vaccine given to him. This should, of course, all be killed in the course of manufacture, and the special testing procedures which have been evolved and applied to polio vaccine are designed to eliminate this risk to the maximum possible extent.
I shall describe these tests in more detail in a moment, but I ought to make it clear that all tests of polio vaccine are sample tests, because of necessity only samples of each batch of vaccine can be tested. The possibility, therefore, must inevitably remain that in the untested part of the batch a few particles of living virus may still be present. This means that, whatever the test and however and wherever applied, no vaccine can be guaranteed to be wholly free from risk, because it is possible, although not at all probable, that the testing procedures could fail on occasion to detect survival. If this were to happen it would not be possible to distinguish the individual case of post-inoculation paralysis which might be due to this cause from cases due to the other general causes that I have described to the Committee. Therefore, though risk cannot be altogether excluded, it may be, and indeed is, immensely reduced and minimised by the testing procedures introduced for this purpose. So, though we cannot talk in terms of absolute safety, the risk is very slight indeed, whereas the degree of protection is very substantial. That is the basic factor we should have in mind.
With these considerations in mind, the Government decided last September to offer vaccination this year to certain priority groups, mainly children up to 15 and expectant mothers, and this constituted a considerable step forward. I should say that vaccination for this purpose is not compulsory. In the light of what I have said, it is right that people should make their own decision with, of course, the benefit of medical guidance. To ascertain which members of the priority groups desired vaccination, it was necessary to evolve a process of registration. In effect, therefore, there were three requisites for the Government programme: registration, the appropriate mechanics for vaccination, and the supply of vaccine, with which we are mainly concerned today.
At that time the Government could look to two main sources of supply—British vaccine and Salk vaccine—and, in turn, to two sources of Salk vaccine, Canada and the United States. The Committee knows that British and Salk vaccines have two common strains of virus, but the third differs. The British vaccine contains Brunenders Type 1

strain, whereas the Salk contains the Mahoney strain.
If any particles of live virus escaped inactivation and contained the Mahoney strain, they would be more dangerous than particles containing the Brunenders strain, and this is the essential difference between the two vaccines. With this in mind the Medical Research Council, which is an independent body advising the Government, as the Committee knows, advised last year on the following lines. First, that Salk should be regarded as a temporary supplement of supplies to bridge the gap until enough British supplies were available to meet full requirements; secondly, that such vaccines should be check-tested by the Medical Research Council; and thirdly, that people should be given the right to refuse, Salk vaccine if they preferred to wait for the British. In the placing of their orders, the Government naturally had this advice in mind, and placed orders for 5,000 litres—that is 5 million doses, if it helps the right hon. Lady—of Salk, 4,000 Canadian and 1,000 from the United States, all to be check-tested by the Medical Research Council.
I said a moment ago, and it is important in this context, that I would say a word or two about the subject of tests. Tests of polio vaccine are for three main purposes—first, the antigenicity tests for potency; secondly, the safety tests to negative the survival of live virus; and. thirdly, the sterility tests to establish freedom from bacteria. The safety tests are themselves comprised of three main types applied at different stages of production. For convenience, I will describe them as tests A, B and C.
Test A is carried out on separate pools of the individual strains of virus used. The first stage in vaccine preparation consists of the cultivation of these relatively small pools which, after inactivation, are later blended together. Before blending the separate pools are tested, at two stages at least, in the process of inactivation of the virus. If a positive result is obtained at either stage, the pool is discarded. Test B is the post-blending test. Like Test A it is carried out by a tissue culture but it is carried out on samples of the blended strain, and is sensitive in detecting very small amounts of residual live virus in the vaccine. Test C is a different type of test because it is not a tissue culture test


during the process of manufacture but a test applied by way of injection of monkeys from samples taken from the final containers of the finished vaccine.
Those are the three safety tests. Test A is applied and its results recorded only by the manufacturers, because of course it is not practicable for this test to be applied by outside agencies. Tests B and C are carried out by the manufacturer with, in the case of American Salk, additional tests at the National Institute of Health at Bethesda, who are the licensing authority of the United States. It has also been the practice for the Medical Research Council, in the process of check-testing, to apply tests B and C to Salk vaccine. I reiterate that all these tests are sample tests, and clearly only sample tests are possible with polio vaccine. So, although tests cannot altogether exclude risk and guarantee safety, they can and do minimise it to relatively small proportions.
I must say a word about the implications of testing on the time factor. Polio vaccine is a perishable commodity; that is to say, it loses its potency with time. In the United States, Government regulations require polio vaccine to be labelled with a life of not more than six months from the date of issue by the manufacturer. It follows that if we are to have check-testing, the most appropriate method is to run the tests concurrently on different samples from the same batches on both sides of the Atlantic. This ensures the maximum potency period for distribution and use.
What I would like to indicate to the Committee is that concurrent testing implies long-term contracts; that is to say, forward orders are placed for delivery at a future date, subject to satisfactory testing. The orders for the 5,000 litres of Salk were placed on this basis. It is true, of course, that long-term contracts and check-testing impose a certain inflexibility compared with the purchase of Salk vaccine "off the shelf" and the acceptance of the American tests as sufficient.
The right hon. Lady suggested that not enough was purchased originally. On Monday, I made some reference to the reasons for this, and they are really four. First, the advice from the Medical Research Council was that the import should be a temporary measure only, to bridge the gap

until adequate supplies of British vaccine became available, and then should stop. Secondly, there was no reason to foresee at that time the almost total interruption of British supplies that has occurred. Thirdly, parents were given a right of refusal of Salk vaccine and so no estimate could be made of the degree to which it would be acceptable—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] Of course it could not be made. If one gives a right of refusal one cannot estimate, until one has some experience, how much that right will be exercised and therefore what demand, in the circumstances anticipated at that time, would be likely to come about.

Mr. Barnett Janner: May I ask the Minister a question? First, will he answer the simple question why he did not order sufficient of the vaccine from the United States and Canada to cover the contingencies to which he has referred, so that he would have an opportunity of providing all that was necessary? Secondly, on the question of the right of individuals to choose whether they would have Salk vaccine or the British vaccine, surely it would have been simple to ask on registration whether the individual would choose or refuse one or the other?

Mr. Walker-Smith: That is precisely what we did, as the hon. Member ought to know. We are now talking about September, before the registration procedures had been evolved and put into operation. The hon. Member also overlooks the potency factor which I have just mentioned.

Dr. Summerskill: Is it not a fact that the right hon. and learned Gentleman made no order for Salk vaccine from the United States until last September?

Mr. Walker-Smith: It was known last September that that was the initial order for Salk vaccine, the 5,000 litres referred to. This was ordered against the background of the advice given by the Medical Research Council to which I have referred and also against the expectation of British supplies at that time. Our expert advice was then and still is that British vaccine, when available, is the best and constitutes the best long-term basis for our use. As I have explained the Salk was purchased against the background of that advice as a bridging operation until the other became available.

Mr. Maurice Edelman: The right hon. and learned Gentleman has said something which is very important and which is now being said for the first time. Is he now saying that the advice of the Government, acting on the advice of the Medical Research Council, is that if a parent has a choice he should choose British vaccine rather than the imported Salk vaccine.

Mr. Walker-Smith: The Medical Research Council regards the British as the best vaccine, if available, because of the presence of Brunenders Type 1 strain instead of the Mahoney strain. I have dealt with that in the earlier and necessarily slightly technical part of my speech.
In September last year, there was every reasonable expectation that 1958 would see mounting supplies of the British vaccine from at least two large and independent sources. Indeed, having started production in 1956, one of these companies had a steady record of substantial production in 1957 from the spring onwards and substantial consignments were received up to December and January and, indeed, into February of this year. Nobody could have foreseen at that time that British production would be almost at a standstill for several months in 1958, and it would have been a quite unreasonable hypothesis on which to work.

Mrs. Barbara Castle: Before the right hon. Gentleman deals with the interruptions in the British supply, will he say whether it is not a fact that the target which Burroughs Wellcome set itself as a maximum production, when it was in production, was 4 million doses a year, enough for 2 million people, and, therefore, that if 12 million people were eligible there was an obvious gap which could have been foreseen from the beginning and which ought to have been met by imports?

Mr. Walker-Smith: I do not intend to go into the individual circumstances of the companies concerned, but the figures show that that firm was substantially the minor contributor. The company to which I have referred was not Burroughs Wellcome.

Mrs. Castle: Mrs. Castlerose——

Mr. Walker-Smith: The hon. Lady will have a chance to speak in this debate—perhaps; it is not for me to say.
I want shortly to deal with the difficulties that struck these two major companies. They were not difficulties involving just this or that batch, but were difficulties involving a wide range of their facilities for polio vaccine and their present production potential. In view of what the right hon. Lady has said, I want to make it clear that I say this by way of explanation and certainly not by way of blame. I feel regret at these events, as I am sure we all do, but I do not and will not utter a single syllable of reproach, and I will certainly not follow the ignoble example set in some quarters of preferring uninformed recrimination to understanding of the difficulties.
I repeat: no blame can be or should be attached to these companies. They are fine companies of great and deserved reputation. They have made a notable contribution to our requirements in the wide and varied field of contemporary pharmaceutical products, and we should sympathise with them in their difficulties in this context and have confidence that here too they will have a great contribution to make in the future.

Mrs. Castle: Mrs. Castlerose——

Mr. Walker-Smith: I have given way several times and I warned the Committee that, unfortunately, to do justice to this difficult theme I should necessarily have to trespass on the patience of hon. Members for some little time. I think it is fairer to other hon. Members who wish to speak and who have great expert knowledge of this subject if I do not give way more than I need so that I do not take up too much time.
As I indicated to the House on 21st April, we took immediate steps to remedy the deficiencies arising in the British vaccine, and in January, 2,800 litres of Salk were ordered subject to check testing. That meant that the 2,800 litres could not be immediately available because of the concurrent testing procedures. That amount, as it were, was put into the pipeline with the expectation of emerging from the tests, if successful, in the course of April and May. This would have been the main, but not the


sole, source of supply for the present period.
I have been dealing so far with the supply of vaccine and the problems presented by the difficulties inherent in this complex process, but meanwhile registration and vaccination are progressing. The latest returns, as the right hon. Lady said, are not complete, because they are two-monthly returns in order not to burden local health authorities and divert their energies from the practical business in hand.
The right hon. Lady quoted the figures I gave for the end of February, which I stated in the House a week or two ago. Registration at the end of February was a little under 50 per cent. for children and a good deal below that for adults, but we did not and do not take the view that registration is likely to be less than 50 per cent., and, of course, it will not be. I am sure that the figures for April, which we will have within a week or so, will show a material advance upon those registration figures. I repeat that registration is a continuous process and the local health authorities will certainly continue to accept registrations as made. We have set no closing date and do not intend to do so.
As registration is a continuing process, so is vaccination and consequently there is no question of a precise closing date for the programme. Our intention briefly but. I hope, sufficiently stated is to proceed, as fast as supplies and the mechanics of vaccination allow, to vaccinate all who register.
To come to the transatlantic supplies to which the right hon. Lady referred, it is a fact that difficulties also came in this sphere, and although the major set-back to our programme was the considerable and almost total postponement of British supplies, we have encountered difficulties with the Salk. The right hon. Lady quoted what I said in the House on 21st April about the four cases being all different, but none of them is the fault of the Government.
The right hon. Lady referred to the Canadian case. The facts were that one batch of Canadian Salk was withdrawn by the manufacturers because it was not up to standard, and two batches were pre-empted for Canadian use with a consequential postponement of our expecta-

tion of delivery. I want to make it quite clear that there is no question of any breach of contract or faulty delivery by our Canadian suppliers. On the contrary, we are expecting the balance of their deliveries by June. Half a million doses arrived on Tuesday and are in the process of very rapid distribution.
A thousand litres of the American Salk originally ordered were duly received in February, check tested and in good order. The order for the additional 2,800 litres in January to replace the deferred supplies of British vaccine was placed with the same American firm who enjoy a deservedly high reputation for care and safety.
Unfortunately, the result of Test A on one strain pool component of the first large batch of 1,500 litres showed a minute contamination of live virus. I pointed out in my description of the test a few moments ago that this discovery by the American manufacturers, microscopic as it was, led to the immediate and unquestioned discarding of the whole batch of the vaccine. It also meant that the American authorities would require a successive run of negative tests on five batches from this firm before allowing one further batch to be issued. I say this, not in any sense of regret, but in one of unqualified approval of and praise for the thoroughness of this testing procedure. Of course, I regret the inevitable delays, as we all do, but I should certainly regret it very much more if any contaminated vaccine had been issued, even though contaminated only in the most minute degree.
These events together had both an immediate consequence on anticipated deliveries and a more long-term consequence on supplies in the pipeline, which is less capable of precise assessment. The immediate consequence was the loss of the 1,500 litres expected shortly after Easter. This was the largest item expected for delivery and issue in April, though, as I have already told the House, we have been able to distribute three batches of fair size in April, together totalling over 1 million doses.
The further consequence is that some large items in the pipeline must be considered to be at risk, because of the very proper requirements of the United States testing procedures, to which I have referred. In effect, therefore, our 2,800 litres of replacement for British vaccine,


instead of being available in part already and in part in the next few weeks, will not be available at the earliest for some weeks, and in any event, not at any date precisely definable now.
The combined effects of these events therefore presented us with a dual problem, or rather a problem with two facets; first, the acquisition of further vaccine, and secondly, the time factor in its use. The first problem was a physical problem, within the sole competence of Parliament. On the second problem, it was right that the Government should seek expert advice from the Medical Research Council as to whether, in view of the shortfall of vaccine which had arisen from all these varying causes in these difficult and unpredictable processes, American and Canadian Salk vaccine which had satisfactorily passed safety tests and had been licensed for issue in the country of origin, should be made available for use in this country, without first being subjected to the further safety tests of the Medical Research Council.
The Medical Research Council have sent a reasoned opinion to the Lord President of the Council. After rehearsing the factors, it reiterates its view that tested British vaccine is the best, and lists its order of priority or order of safety. First, the vaccine made according to the British formula which has successfully passed the British safety tests; then, imported vaccine from America and Canada, which has successfully passed the safety tests in the country of origin and also the British safety tests; and, thirdly, imported vaccine from the same sources which has successfully passed safety tests and been licensed for issue in the country of origin.
The Council then continues, and I quote:
After carefully weighing all the available evidence bearing on this complex problem, the Council are satisfied that the risk of producing paralytic poliomyelitis by injecting any one of these three vaccines is very slight and that a person inoculated with any one of them is substantially less likely to contract paralytic poliomyelitis than if he is left uninoculated. Nevertheless, no vaccine can be guaranteed to be wholly free from risk, and the preference should always be for the safest known vaccine.
The Council goes on, after referring to the present shortfall of the vaccine, with the reasons for which they are not concerned,

but which I have just given to the Committee, to express this opinion:
After carefully examining the present situation, the Medical Research Council have concluded that, as it would appear to be impossible to overcome by any other means the deficit which will otherwise by inevitable during the summer months, it would be advisable as a temporary measure to issue American or Canadian vaccine which has not been submitted to British tests, provided that it has been tested and licensed for use in the country of origin.
The Government accept that advice and will act at once upon it. Full information about the new arrangements will be circulated next week to the local health authorities. Their medical officers of health and all family doctors received detailed guidance about Salk vaccine last autumn, and they will now receive copies of the Medical Research Council's advice to enable them to deal with questions by parents and others who apply to them for advice on what they should do. Full details will, of course, also be made available to the medical Press.
When the circular and guidance have been issued we propose to start distributing the new Salk vaccine. As I told the House on Monday, a million doses, part-British, part-Canadian, have been issued last week and this week to local health authorities, and substantial new supplies will follow hot-foot upon them.
This involves the supply of the full requirements of local health authorities, not only for those already registered, but those who continue to register in the coming weeks and months. As registrations will continue there is inevitably a fairly heavy programme of vaccination ahead, but, given the good will and cooperation of local health authorities and general practitioners—and both have cooperated magnificiently, and will, I know, continue to do so—I am confident that there is no insuperable task laid upon them. We shall, with their help, vaccinate every man, woman and child, within the priority groups who registers for vaccination.
The Medical Research Council have advised this as a temporary measure. I want to make it clear that its opinion in no way derogates from its general view that British vaccine is best, and that in general the greater the sizes and number of samples tested the better. I have, I hope, given a faithful paraphrase of the main content of the Council's advice, but,


as hon. Members may wish to study in detail, not only the conclusion but the reasoning of this important statement on this complex and technical problem, I have arranged for it to be available in the Vote Office.
I need only add that the Government accept also the longer term advice of the Medical Research Council, and propose to restore check testing in all cases by the Council at the earliest possible moment, and like the Council, we look forward to the possibility that one day we can dispense with the need to use any vaccine containing the Mahoney strain, but I must tell the House that this day is not yet, because of the present uncertainty surrounding the British supply position.
Meanwhile, we shall proceed with the work in hand on the basis of the Council's immediate advice. We shall go to it with a will, and we shall invite and expect the co-operation of all concerned. There is and always has been a right to reject the Salk vaccine if people prefer to wait for the British vaccine. This is logical, since there is, in any event, no obligation on anybody to register for vaccination at all. People will still have this right of refusal if they prefer to wait, either for the British vaccine or for Salk vaccine check tested by the Medical Research Council. This is a decision which the individual may find hard. But he can take his doctor's advice in individual cases.
Perhaps, from the point of view of the layman, I may conclude with a few words designed to help on the generality of the subject. I know that this is a sensitive and emotional subject. The fact that some may have sought to exploit these feelings does not alter the fact that there are deep feelings and genuine apprehensions. What people want is a guarantee of safety—an absolute exclusion of risk to the uttermost iota. What they particularly want is such a guarantee in respect of their children, for whom they make the decision, and this is certainly not an ignoble wish.
But this is precisely what they cannot have—not quite, that is to say. They cannot have it, either in this country or anywhere else in the world; not with any vaccine or with any testing. But in how many cases, and in how many activi-

ties of life, can such an absolute guarantee be given? It certainly cannot be given in the most everyday activities of life—in travelling by train, or even crossing the road. We must learn to look at this as we look at the other risks and chances of life. We must weigh the balance—in this case the risk which is tiny, against the gain which is great.
We should have in mind the following considerations: first, that we are acting in this matter upon expert advice; secondly, that the medical profession will be getting expert guidance and advice; thirdly, that our own tests to date have detected no flaw in the Salk vaccine which we have received; fourthly, that this is a fast-moving new technique, and great progress and improvements have been made in the technique of manufacture and testing since the disturbing Cutter episode of 1955 and, fifthly, that we have the experience of the world, and especially of the great North American Continent, particularly in the course of last year. Over 200 million doses of Salk vaccine have been administered in the United States in the last three years, and over 100 million in 1957 alone—besides millions more doses in many lands and diverse climes.
Let us not, then, in this matter, take counsel of our fears. Let us rather take confidence from the experience of our friends and the advancing skill and mounting ingenuity of science. I have described—I hope as fully and faithfully as time and the complexities of the subject allow—our present position and our future prospects. Let us now press forward—I hope together—to the task ahead. In this, I invite the co-operation of all men and women of good will, and I ask the House to set them the example.

8.23 p.m.

Mr. Maurice Edelman: We have just listened to a long statement by the Minister which has been disappointing in substance and discouraging in presentation. I cannot help feeling that tomorrow morning millions of mothers will be confused and anxious about the choice between the Salk vaccine, which will be the major vaccine available, and the British vaccine, which will not be forthcoming in anything like the desired quantities.
Although I listened to the Minister with mounting concern I was most concerned


of all when, at the end, he said that in this matter he was being guided by the experts. Although I do not deny the value of expert advice, he must know that in this issue of anti-polio vaccine there has been a conflict of evidence among the experts, and that the very advice that he was rejecting last year, at the instigation of his own expert advisers, is advice which he has been taking ever since last September, when he was finally persuaded to import Salk vaccine.
As the Minister has rightly said, the object of the debate is to see what we can do to reduce the threat and danger of the poliomyelitis epidemic which we saw last year in all its ugly proportions and, by a joint examination of the problem, to see whether we can achieve a situation where no child will ever again have to walk about with irons on its legs or pant for life in an iron lung. That is what we seek to do, and we hope that in future summers parents may look forward to the months of July, August and September with hope and happiness instead of the apprehensions which they have suffered in the years following the war.
As a layman, I became personally concerned in this matter when, last year, Coventry had a most severe outbreak of this epidemic in which, by the end of August, over 100 people had been attacked by the disease, among whom 66 had the paralytic form. At that time the warnings which had previously been given, and which up till then had seemed to be of merely academic and purely medical concern, became the real thing to hundreds of thousands of people in my constituency, and as the epidemic spread throughout the country it became a matter of vital concern to many millions of parents.
My charge against the Minister and the Ministry is that poliomyelitis is a disease capable of control in precisely the same way as smallpox has been controlled. It is a disease which may be controlled by immunisation, and which is in process of being effectively controlled in America, where it was once a paralysing and killing disease of epidemic proportions which agitated the whole country year after year in the summer months. Had the Minister and his predecessors engaged in an energetic attack on the disease with the knowledge and resources at the disposal of our country, instead of the

anxieties with which we are now facing the summer months of 1958, we could have faced them with the certainty that there would not be the epidemic which we fear may occur.
Last summer, the Minister was warned by various sources that the potential supply of anti-polio vaccine from domestic producers would be inadequate, and that the only way in which he would be able to deal with the epidemic of last summer and autumn, and the possible epidemic of this year, was by importing Salk vaccine on a massive scale. When the epidemic struck in Coventry I went to see his predecessor's deputy and urged upon him the need to import Salk vaccine from America or any other source, especially France, which might be prepared to sell it to us.
The Parliamentary Secretary dismissed the proposal out of hand. He repeated the case, which the Minister has very properly put forward tonight on the advice of the Medical Research Council, that as the Mahoney strain was the dominant one in the Salk vaccine, and was more virulent than the strain used in British vaccine, it was thought undesirable to import Salk vaccine from the United States or Canada.
What were the facts? They were facts which only now are filtering through to the general public. At the end of August last year the Americans had issued 140 million doses of the Salk vaccine and, apart from the Cutter incident there had been only minor occurrences of failure The argument that the Minister has put forward only tonight—weighing up all the advantages and disadvantages of the vaccine and taking into account the reservations of the Medical Research Council—is based on considerations which were operative last summer Finally, under the pressure of public opinion, sustained by a responsible Press—and I want to say that, contrary to the Minister's innuendo, I believe that the Press has behaved very responsibly in this matter, and has, by its agitation, awakened not only the country but even himself and his predecessor to the urgency of the matter—the Prime Minister himself ultimately over-rode the Departmental haverings, and, as a result of a Cabinet decision, required the importation of the Salk vaccine.
Since the Minister invokes expert evidence, perhaps I can call in aid some of his own medical officers of health, who, last year, were writing and speaking on the subject of the importation of vaccine, and who, very courageously—and they deserve the thanks of the whole British public for their courage in speaking up, although they were the servants of the Ministry of Health—urged, clearly and conclusively, that Salk vaccine should be imported. Perhaps I can quote from one Minister of Health who attended the International Conference on Poliomyelitis in Geneva, last July, and who, on his return, wrote:
I am of the opinion, in face of the possibility, even the probability, of an epidemic of grave proportions this year"—
that is, in 1957—
that had we bought the American vaccine six months ago we might have saved, not one single mishap but some lives and much crippling.
I must say that was an understatement, because in a personal letter to me he said:
Every time I see four cases of poliomyelitis I cannot help feeling that three might have been prevented by early action.
What h meant by "early action" was importation of the Salk vaccine.
Now let me quote Dr. Geffen, the Medical Officer of Health for St. Pancras, who, again with great courage, has spoken on this subject. He said, in relation to the present year:
If we want to prevent the possibility of an epidemic in 1958"—
he was writing in August, 1957—
then I believe we should import the American vaccine as soon as possible, using it to the maximum extent that we can, and, if necessary, replace it or add to it by the English vaccine as and when it becomes freely available.
I refer to this statement by a medical officer of health who is in daily touch with cases of poliomyelitis, and whose concern is the health of his borough. He said last year that the only way in which there could be mass inoculation against poliomyelitis was by the importation of Salk vaccine.
What happened? Although the Prime Minister did, last year, decide that Salk vaccine should be imported, it is quite clear from what the Minister has said that his expert advisers were really a ball and chain on his activities; they were

clearly opposed to the importation of Salk vaccine. They wanted to import it, yes, but they wanted to import it slowly; they wanted to make sure—and the Minister stated this quite clearly—that Burroughs Wellcome and Glaxo should have the maximum opportunity of developing and producing the vaccine, for which, I believe I am right in saying, they were receiving a substantial subvention on the initiative of the General Medical Council.
When my hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Mr. Hastings) suggested that the production of this vaccine should be made a national concern, I do not think that the Minister, in his reply, referred to the fact that hundreds of thousands of pounds have been paid to Glaxo and to Burroughs Wellcome so that they should have the facilities for producing this vaccine. I want to know of the Minister, repeating a question I put to him the other day, whether, in fact, any undertakings, written or verbal, have been given to these two firms that they will have priority in contracts for the vaccine from the Minister. In other words I am asking whether there are any considerations, not medical but commercial which have resulted in giving these priorities and preferences to these two pharmaceutical firms. I hope that the Minister will answer that question.
I would now quote from another letter—this will be my last quotation—which I have received from a doctor who was actively engaged in the fight against polio. He says:
There is no excuse for the Ministry to fail to import the American or Canadian vaccine. Their excuses simply do not hold water. The American vaccine has been used in 150 million cases.
He wrote this letter last September.
Except for the early Cutter incident the number of complications recorded are 25. These are all of a very minor variety. Surely no vaccine anywhere in the world has been tried on such an enormous scale.… I think it is the height of impertinence for the Ministry of Health to say that it is not proven, particularly when all we have managed to produce is enough to vaccinate a paltry two to three million.
At this point my correspondent goes on to make a very serious charge against the Ministry, one which I repeat with all responsibility because I feel that there are many points, not only of maladministration, but of some commercial preference in the allocation of contracts. I


cannot help feeling, whatever the medical rationalisation, that there may have been commercial factors involved in the allocating of contracts and which deserve the closest scrutiny.

Mr. John Arbuthnot: These are quite monstrous accusations.

Mr. Edelman: I propose to develop the point. I am talking about inferences, and if the inferences are wrong, then the Minister or the Parliamentary Secretary will reply to them.

Mr. Richard Fort: Smear.

Mr. Edelman: I am going to quote again from the letter from the doctor. It contains points which the hon. Member who said "smear" so loudly might prefer to hear before he makes another comment. The letter says:
I can only believe that there is some black agreement between the Ministry and the commercial firms in England not to import American or Canadian vaccine. If this is so, a manslaughter charge should be brought … every time a British child dies from acute anterior poliomyelitis.
I repeat that because there are reasons to believe that there are strong resistances at work within the Minister's own colleagues against the importation into this country of the vaccine from abroad, or even the encouragement of importation of such vaccine. All those to whom I have spoken about the International Conference on Poliomyelitis, in Geneva, were unanimous—though, of course, they differed about the efficacy of the individual vaccines produced by different firms—in saying that this conference, so far from laying its whole weight on the study of poliomyelitis, resembled a commercial jamboree in which spokesmen for the vaccine interests were each plugging his own vaccine to try to ensure that the vaccine was adopted by particular Governments.
I have to record that, because I shall say something now which is within my own personal knowledge and experience. I apologise to the Committee for making public matters in which I was personally evolved. At the height of the polio epidemic in France last year I went to France, where I saw members of the French Ministry of Health. I asked them whether the Pasteur Institute had any anti-polio vaccine available which could be sent to Britain. Although there was

an epidemic of poliomyelitis in France at the time the Pasteur Institute generously said that it was willing to send immediately enough vaccine to inoculate 50,000 British children.
The essential thing about this Lepine vaccine, as it is called, is that it is made from dead virus. A layman myself, like the Minister of Health, I can only call in evidence expert opinion. The distinguished French specialist, Dr. Escoffier-Lambiotte, said that the security factor of the French strain in relation to the Mahoney strain is about 10,000. In fact, the French vaccine has been used widely in France, in Roumania, and, happily, there has never been a single adverse incident affecting its use.
Let it be remembered that the Pasteur Institute is not just a third-rate local laboratory. It is the laboratory which developed the B.C.G. vaccine. It is a laboratory which has a great tradition behind it. When I communicated the offer of the Pasteur Institute to the Minister's predecessor he treated the offer, which was not an offer from me but an offer from the Institute, with great churlishness, and at a later stage the Minister of Health himself was obliged to send a letter which was, in fact, a letter of apology to the Pasteur Institute for the way in which its offer had been treated.

Mr. Walker-Smith: The hon. Member says I was obliged to send a letter. I was very happy to send the letter to the French Department pointing out the circumstances, and that though there might be differences of method and tests that involved no slight upon them. People are not obliged to do these things of courtesy. Some people do them because they want to, and feel them to be appropriate.

Mr. Edelman: The right hon. and Learned Gentleman seems to have forgotten, perhaps forgotten for the occasion of tonight, the tremendous resentment which was felt in France and which was expressed in the Press, in Le Figaro, for instance, and by the directors of the institute about the manner—I absolve the right hon. and learned Gentleman personally—the manner in which his predecessor treated that offer.
I mention this not to dwell on history but to dwell on the fact that there was an organisation of the highest repute which was prepared to make an immediate


application of enough vaccine for 50,000 children, and, more than that, was prepared to go on mounting the supply of vaccine so that we in this country, who lack adequate domestic vaccine, could have a safe vaccine with which to inoculate our children.

Mr. Fort: Would the hon. Member tell us whether the Pasteur Institute's vaccine, either as manufactured or as a result of French Government tests, passes a testing procedure in conformity with the Medical Research Council's protocols?

Mr. Edelman: No, I cannot answer that question. All I do know, on the authority of distinguished French virologists, is that the French vaccine is regarded as probably being the safest vaccine in the whole world.
When I returned from France I asked the Prime Minister himself whether he would not over-ride the decision of the Minister of Health not to import the vaccine. A few days later an announcement was made that the Salk vaccine was to be imported and that, therefore, it would not be necessary to import the French vaccine. More than that—and this is an important point I want to put to the Minister—the Prime Minister at that time wrote to me and said that there would be continuing conversations between the Ministry of Health and the French authorities with a view to examining the possibility of supplying the French vaccine. When I asked him about that the other day, all he could say was that the decision to import the Transatlantic vaccine made it no longer necessary. In other words, what I am asking him is whether the Prime Minister's promise has been fulfilled.

Dr. Barnett Stross: Can my hon. Friend tell the Committee what the French declare the immunity capacity of their vaccine is as compared with that of the Salk vaccine?

Mr. Edelman: I believe that the immunity of the Salk vaccine is 75 per cent. I think that the immunity, or the claim, at any rate, within the limits of French experiments, of the French vaccine is somewhat higher than that.
I want to turn now to the immediate problem. The immediate problem, despite everything the Minister has said,

is that even if the summer programme for the vaccination of children up to 15 were fulfilled it might well leave many people unprotected. We have been talking about this programme as if it would mean immunity for the whole of British youth and freedom from anxiety for every parent by the end of the summer. But, in fact, only children up to 15 were involved, and even out of those I doubt whether more than half will have been successfully vaccinated by the end of the summer.
I say that for this reason, despite the Minister's promise—and we are now both on record in this matter. A medical officer of health of my acquaintance whom I asked about the mechanics of inoculation has told me that under the most favourable existing circumstances, even if the vaccine were made available, it would be extremely difficult for him and his assistants to inoculate more than 3,000 children per week. If this rate were maintained, and even if the vaccine were available, I am certain that it would still mean that by the end of the summer at least half of the children in this country up to the age of 16 would not have had a second inoculation. That is a matter for great concern.
We who have been politically forbearing in not having raised the matter earlier, who now raise it under the pressure of events because we cannot contemplate the possibility that we are to get those anguished cries from mothers asking, "Where is the vaccine for our children?"—we who are faced with this possibility this summer have now, as a political duty, to urge the Minister to make decisions which, even at this late stage, may save the situation. What is quoted from the Medical Research Council merely shows that now, at the beginning of the summer of 1958, he is desperately trying to improvise in a matter which for long has been bad.
I am appalled at the dilatoriness with which the Minister of Health has considered the claims of this very disabling disease. We know that there are extremely conservative elements within the Ministry. There are bureaucrats of medicine, as there are bureaucrats in every other sphere of activity. I believe that what the Ministry needs now is a good shake-up. I believe that one of the first things to be done should be for the Ministry to get a new spokesman


upon whose word the country can rely, because the whole record on the subject of poliomyelitis ever since last summer is a record of promise followed by disappointment. Those who have been responsible for neglect in obtaining the vaccine should be dismissed. The Minister himself, who has defended the damaging ineptitudes of his Department, should resign.
I believe that what we need now is a committee of inquiry to go into the whole dark record of the Ministry's failure to defend the country against poliomyelitis. Let us pray that this summer the cycle of the disease will be such that there will not be a major epidemic, and that it will be possible for the damage done by the Minister's neglect to be repaired in time for next year. Let us hope that that will happen. In the meantime, the Minister must bear responsibility and the weight of our condemnation.

8.49 p.m.

Mr. Philip Goodhart: We in Beckenham have two reasons for taking an interest in this debate. First, we use the vaccine and, secondly, we produce the vaccine. Burroughs Wellcome and Company have their laboratory and production centre in my constituency.
During the last year the Minister has had to face the most extraordinary record of accidents. We in Beckenham know how difficult it is to produce this vaccine. We know that it is not like producing a toothpaste or a television set. We know that just as it is complicated to make, so there are additional problems, because once there is a breakdown in the production line one cannot merely stop and hope that it will be put right. It is often necessary to go right back to the beginning. One breakdown can mean a delay of six months or more in the whole programme.
While recognising that this is a difficult process, the Minister has also had to deal with some improbabilities. It was highly improbable that all four sources of supply would fail one after the other. The two British sources of supply, the American source and the Canadian source have all fallen down on us. It is an extraordinary state of affairs and is certainly unprecedented, because, as we know, although it is difficult to produce this vaccine, vast quantities have been

produced satisfactorily in the United States.
Could the Minister have been expected to do more? In the circumstances, I do not think he could. I congratulate him on the steps which he has already taken and I welcome the statement which he has made this evening.
We must also consider this evening whether the Opposition are trying to make party capital out of this unfortunate series of events. The hon. Member for Coventry, North (Mr. Edelman) has at least a consistent record on this matter because he has been opposed to the Medical Research Council from the word "go". In part, his criticism of the advice of the Council has been correct, although I was sorry to hear the smear tactics which he used against the firms which have done so much to produce this life-saving substance. It was a disgraceful performance.
On the other hand, at least he has been consistent. I do not think the same can be said for the right hon. Lady the Member for Warrington (Dr. Summer-skill). Only once in a speech of 30 minutes did she refer to the accidents which have interfered with the supply of vaccine. She spent the rest of the time blaming administrative blunders, as she called them. Never once did we gather from her whether she would have rejected the advice of the Medical Research Council on which my right hon. Friend has relied. I ask her now, would she have gone against the advice of the Medical Research Council, which was to use the Salk vaccine only as a temporary stopgap? Would she have gone against that advice?

Dr. Summerskill: The hon. Member was at least honest when he said that he was speaking for Burroughs Wellcome and Company who work in his constituency. Surely he should be logical in this matter. There was no importation of this vaccine until last September, although we are informed tonight that it will be imported immediately. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer the Question."] I am answering the question. Would not the hon. Member agree that if the vaccine were not imported the firm of Burroughs Wellcome and Company should have been given an order for an amount equivalent to the dosage for 2 million children? That is the question before us.

Mr. Goodhart: We have not had a reply to my question.

Mr. E. G. Willis: It was not the reply that the hon. Member wanted.

Mr. Goodhart: We have had not reply at all.
In reply to the right hon. Lady's question, I do not know of any complaint on the part of Burroughs Wellcome or any feeling by the firm that it could have done more or got into production earlier than it did had it received any additional contract. Indeed, I have it on the authority of the firm to which reference has been made that on no account, whatever the Government had done in the way of contracts or stimulation, could it have got into production a moment earlier than it did.

Dr. Summerskill: Does the hon. Member realise that he is giving me my case? He is saying that the Minister has left the production of this most important vaccine simply to a firm which is unfitted in all ways to produce it.

Hon. Members: Oh.

Mr. Goodhart: Who is it in the Government service who is fitted to teach the experts in this firm their own job in the production of this vaccine? Who are these Government experts that the right hon. Lady wishes to send down to teach the firm its own job? I certainly know of none, and I do not think that my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister knows any. Even if the right hon. Lady were Minister, I do not think she would be able to find these experts in the Government service. It is, of course, this firm and its colleagues who would have to train the Government officials.

Mr. Edelman: Will the hon. Member answer me on a question of fact? Would he say whether the independent consultants to the Ministry of Health are also consultants to Burroughs Wellcome and Glaxo?

Mr. Goodhart: I have no idea who those independent consultants are, but no doubt my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, in replying to the debate, can deal with that point.
To move on to perhaps calmer but not entirely uncontentious ground, while congratulating my right hon. and learned

Friend on his performance so far, I should like to express a word of disquiet about the future, particularly about the importation of monkeys. Surely, it is the supply of monkeys that represents the Achilles heel in the supply of vaccine, not only here but throughout the world.
During the last two months, there have been two forms of restriction on the export of monkeys from India. First, the limitation on the weight of the monkeys allowed to be exported has been increased from 4 lb. to 6 lb., and secondly, there have been restrictions on the number of monkeys placed in a single cage. The transport difficulties can be easily overcome, but I am told by the Ministry—and this is confirmed by others outside—that the raising of the weight limit means that instead of getting 30 monkeys suitable for medical research from every 100 caught in India, only ten out of every 100 monkeys will now be suitable for research. As India is far and away the largest supplier of the monkeys, this must inevitably give rise to concern for the future.
The firm that operates in my constituency, apart from the present spread of sickness among the monkeys in its laboratories, has had two monkey crises to contend with, and it has not had a particularly helpful reaction from the Ministry of Health when it has gone there to ask for help. I am told it has had more rapid co-operation from rival firms across the Atlantic. I ask the Minister to use all the power at his elbow to persuade the Indians to relax these restrictions and to supplement the efforts of individual firms to find alternative sources of supply of monkeys.
This is essentially an international problem. I hope the Minister will also take the lead in stimulating an international conference on the whole problem of the supply of monkeys, in which, of course, India and other supplying nations would take part as well as nations which are importers of monkeys. If that were to be a result of this debate, and if another result were to be an increasing registration of children for vaccination, an otherwise disreputable affair might well after all be of value to the country.

9.3 p.m.

Mr. Barnett Janner: I think that the Minister and those who have spoken from the other side of


the Committee have endeavoured to sidestep the real issue in this debate.
The Minister made a long and very interesting statement, which contained a considerable amount of fact, but I hope that he will not believe that it answers the charge of a lack of foresight and excuses the grave responsibility which rests upon his shoulders. The Minister is a very fine advocate. I have heard him in other places besides this Committee. Tonight, I fear, he has done what often occurs in other places when one has a bad case—used the opportunity to place facts before the Committee with a view to hiding the defects.
This is a very simple question. The question at issue is: did the Minister, or his predecessor, have sufficient acumen to be able to provide for the contingencies which must needs arise in respect of this serious disease? He knew that precautions had to be taken against poliomyelitis. He knew that there was a vaccine, or vaccines, available.
It is no use dithering whether one vaccine is better than another—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] It really is not. It would be different if we had sufficient of all types. If we had sufficient of the best, the Minister would be justified in saying, "Why take something which is inferior when we have a sufficiency of what is best for this purpose?"
But that is not the case. At this very late hour, the Minister produces most damning evidence against himself. The very document he has produced says:
After carefully weighing all the available evidence bearing on this complex problem, the Council are satisfied that the risk of producing paralytic poliomyelitis by injecting any one of these three vaccines"—
any one of them, be it noted—
is very slight, and that a person inoculated with any one of them is substantially less likely to contract paralytic poliomyelitis than if he is left uninoculated.
That is the accusation against the Minister. He knew that. He must have known months and months ago. He was warned of the difficulties. Questions were asked. It is not really fair to say that this is being made a political issue. It is perfectly fair for an Opposition, or even for hon. Members on the same side as himself, to call attention to the fact that the Minister has been negligent in a certain matter. Though I do not say it

about the Minister himself, he must take responsibility, naturally, for those who advise him, and there is no doubt at all in my mind that there has been a very grave dereliction of duty here. It did not matter which of the vaccines was used. The danger was slight.
Instead of ordering vaccine which was available, much of which was sent to Europe and other countries from America, the Minister failed miserably in his duty, and had not the necessary quantity available to meet a contingency which arose when certain supplies failed. It is no good coming to the Committee and saying, "Supplies have failed." The The Minister did not give orders sufficient to cover the amount needed in the event of the supplies failing. Knowing that there must be a considerable quantity which would have to be rejected, he should have carefully calculated the quantity which ought to have been ordered. What nonsense it is to say at this stage, "We have not sufficient at this time to supply the needs of the community, because the supplies which we ordered have failed", when the Minister did not order sufficient to meet a contingency which might arise.
It was not an unknown contingency. The fact is that he knew these things very well. The Minister made his long statement about the need to examine and reexamine the vaccine before coming to a conclusion as to whether it is usable. That is the kernel of the situation. I do not say it personally of the Minister; I have a very great respect for the right hon. and learned Gentleman, but he should have come to us and said, "We have made a mistake. We are doing our best to remedy it. We are proceeding, as fast as we possibly can, to make the effect of the mistake as small as possible". If he had done that, he might have had the sympathy of the Committee. Instead, he has come here with a long story, telling us all about the technical difficulties and complexities of the situation.
We have been told by the Americans themselves that the Salk vaccine, which could and should have been used, has been available all the time, even if it had been tested only by the Americans. Really, it is a very cynical position, because what the Minister is saying is that what is good enough for the community in America, with all those tests,


is not good enough for us even in an emergency. I agree, as does the report of the Medical Research Council, that, were it possible to have the other, that would have been so much the better. But it was not possible.
Thus, we have it that millions of Americans who have been inoculated have been inoculated against the advice or contrary to the deep understanding of the Minister of Health in this country. What utter rubbish! I am sure that the Minister will, when he thinks about it, come to the conclusion that it is illogical to put forward an argument like that.
What is the position? I shall not quote a lot of figures, but there are one or two that face us in such a way that we cannot avoid them. We are told that 20 million doses are necessary, or that 10 million children are to be inoculated, together with 700,000 expectant mothers. We have not got the vaccine for them. It just will not be available. It is no good saying that anyone is trying to frighten people. Nobody is doing that. The fact is that even for two doses there will not be enough, whereas three are required.
That is not the end of the story. What will the Minister do in similar cases to that which I brought to his notice months and months ago, the case of an individual who is put in danger of being contaminated. I received a copy of a letter from a constituent of mine, which he sent to the Press. This is what he said:
The Minister states that the Ministry is to offer vaccination to all children up to the age of 15 and to expectant mothers. I would urge that all who come into contact with polio cases should have at least equal priority. My son, aged 33 years was a public health inspector with a Borough Council in Kent and had occasion in the course of his duties to be in touch with polio contacts. Although he requested to be vaccinated against this disease many months ago no action was taken. In October he was taken ill and died within four days of polio-encephalitis leaving a wife and three young children. He had also requested his children should be vaccinated, but up to now nothing has been done. I contend that had my son been vaccinated he would still be alive. I am, therefore, writing this in the hope that something will be done quickly to give to those in contact with the disease, namely, public health inspectors, nurses, etc., as much priority for preventive action as expectant mothers and children.
This is a human story. It is not something that can be just brushed aside.

These men and women who are nobly doing their duty towards the polio cases are putting themselves and, what is even worse, their families into the danger of getting the disease.
What is the use of talking about priorities? The fact is that those classes which have already been described as priorities are not enough by any means to meet the real needs of the community. We are faced at a critical time with a very unhappy position. Britain is 7 million inoculations of vaccine short even allowing for only two jabs per person.
I do not want to make a political matter of this in the sense that was suggested tonight; but I cannot help thinking that in their heart of hearts the Government supporters themselves must be feeling sick at the situation that has been created. We cannot play with the lives of men and women in that way. The necessary vaccine was available, and it should have been bought. The rejects should have been taken out of the total and the balance should have been sufficient for the purpose of vaccinating every person up to the age of at least 40 and also others who came in contact with the disease.
The danger is known and the position is serious. Questions were asked and the Minister was not unaware of the anxiety throughout the country. It was ignored, and it is no use the Minister coming to us today and saying, "I am sorry about this decision. Now I am going to put it right," knowing that we were right. In these circumstances, the Minister ought to offer a full apology, on behalf of those concerned, not only to this Committee but to the community.
The other day I said here that the position was scandalous, and it is. In fairness, the Minister ought to admit openly that a mistake has been made. He should now buy as much as he can of the vaccine available, wherever it may be obtainable. If he wishes, let him test it as quickly as he can, but do not leave the country in its present perilous state, largely uncared for in this matter.
I hope that the Minister will take note of what has been said tonight. It is unfair to say that my right hon. Friend or any hon. Member on this side of the Committee has raised the issue merely for the sake of attacking anyone. It is


because we are concerned with the health and happiness of people whom we do not want to see crippled or paralysed that we arranged this debate today. Would to heaven we were in a position to be able to see that the mistake could be put right in time in full; but at least let as much as possible be put right as quickly as possible.

9.16 p.m.

Mr. Richard Fort: The hon. Member for Leicester, North-West (Mr. Janner) showed, as did the hon. Member for Coventry, North (Mr. Edelman), a willingness to make scientific decisions which I as a layman who has heard many of the discussions of my professional colleagues would feel reluctant and, indeed, entirely unentitled to make.

Mr. Janner: Would the hon. Gentleman agree with the decision of the Medical Research Council, and is there any difference between the present decision and the one taken six or nine months ago?

Mr. Fort: Of course there is a difference.

Mr. Janner: What is it?

Mr. Fort: If the hon. Gentleman will wait a minute, he will have it made clear to him. I say this not only as a member of the Medical Research Council but also as a father who has had four sons at risk in this disease, that I shall always have some nervousness about the Salk vaccine, which contains the more virulent Mahoney strain. However, after I had listened to my professional colleagues discussing the problem of whether or not this vaccine should be used—and, of course, I am in no position to give a decision in the way the two hon. Gentlemen opposite have done—I could but concur with what they advised.
If, as no doubt it is, the full statement is now before the hon. Gentleman, he will see that it was made on a balance of risks which are exceedingly difficult to determine, in view of the merciful fact that this disease, horrible as it is, is rare, and therefore the scientific evidence on it is difficult to collect in a form which is susceptible to ordered analysis—

Mr. Janner: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, but he must either say whether he agrees with his

colleagues on the Medical Research Council or not. The statement says categorically that anyone inoculated with any one of these three vaccines—
… is substantially less likely to contract paralytic poliomyelitis than if he is left uninoculated.
There is no answer to that statement.

Mr. Fort: If the hon. Gentleman would turn to other parts of the document and also let me continue my argument, he would find that the decision was made on a very nice balance of arguments in view of the difficulty or interpreting the scientific information which is available to us.
I want now to turn, and turn sharply, on the hon. Member for Coventry, North. He made a smearing attack on manufacturers in this country, with which others can deal. However, I feel passionately about the way he attacked my colleagues on the Medical Research Council; not only my professional colleagues, who may well he able to defend themselves in the technical press against his unsupported allegations, but those who are not able to defend themselves, those who work for us day by day carrying out some of the most difficult scientific testing done anywhere in the world; and not only the directors of those departments but the skilled technicians upon whose experience and ability we have to rely for the safety of the vaccine which is put into our children. The hon. Member for Coventry, North wishes to intervene; let him come on.

Mr. Edelman: The hon. Member is working himself into a synthetic rage. I am obliged to repeat what I said previously, namely, that the Medical Research Council is certainly not infallible and that in the case of anti-poliomyelitis vaccine it has come to two conclusions, one last summer and one in the autumn. The one in the summer was not to import Salk vaccine, and the other was to import Salk vaccine. In view of that, the Medical Research Council stands established as a body of fallible people, and I regret that the hon. Member claims for it—and, therefore, for himself—an infallibility which I certainly would not attribute to it.

Mr. Fort: As to the hon. Member's last barb, in the company of professional people I do not make such shock


judgments as he and other hon. Members opposite have continuously done during the debate. Like all human organisations, the Medical Research Council is, of course, fallible, but if the hon. Member would take the trouble to read the evidence in the document published this evening as well as in the Press statements issued by the Medical Research Council last year, he would see that the decisions made previously have now been made on a balance of scientific information which is exceedingly difficult to strike.
To deal with the question of fact which the hon. Member threw at my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart), in order to pursue the campaign which he has been conducting against part of the medical profession, he asked whether any of my colleagues on the Medical Research Council are consultants to Burroughs Wellcome. No doubt Glaxo is also at the back of his mind, just to extend the smear. I do not know; I do not inquire what my colleagues' activities are other than in their professions.

Mr. John Baird: Why not?

Mr. Fort: Because it is no part of my business to promote smears for the other side. If the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mr. Baird), with his medical background, is so concerned about this, he might have come here earlier to listen.
What I can tell the hon. Member for Coventry, North is that the safety tests which the Medical Research Council carries out have been discussed with the manufacturers in this country as well as with the United States Public Health Service, which is responsible for the corresponding tests in the United States, and with the manufacturers of Salk vaccine in the United States, and in the case of Canada the Medical Research Council carries out the tests for them because the Canadian Government do not do so. That is the factual answer to his question, and I hope that it does not add to the campaign to smear anybody connected with this subject who does not support his view.
I should like to address my last few remarks to the Minister and to say that we now have three vaccines in this coun-

try with the specifications outlined in the Medical Research Council's paper, to which he referred. All of them have very small risk. May I ask him if he will reaffirm what he has already said once—that the use of the two vaccines, the British tested Salk vaccine and the Salk vaccine not tested by the M.R.C., is a temporary measure to be terminated as soon as we have sufficient quantities of the British vaccine with the less virulent Brunenders strain in it? Following upon that, will he state that he will make quite sure that no financial or contractual difficulties will hold up the expansion of the British manufacturing capacity making the British type vaccine?
The last point I want to put to him is this. In conformity with the three categories of vaccine which the Medical Research Council has laid down, may I ask him if he will take no action to do what, in my experience, is sometimes done in an entirely different field, that of the engineering industry, and that is to take out from the pipeline material which is just going through? Will he not take supplies of Salk vaccine which are in or going into the testing pipeline in order to boost immediate supplies? I hope my right hon. Friend will recognise that, not only on this side of the Committee but far outside this Chamber, there will be many who will support him in the arguments he has put forward and utterly repudiate the political arguments raised particularly by the hon. Member for Coventry, North.

9.28 p.m.

Mr. Somerville Hastings: I do not propose to refer to the political side of this question at all but to deal with it purely from the medical aspect. I cannot say that I have had practical experience of the Salk vaccine or of any other sort of polio vaccine, but I have assisted in making vaccines, as well as administering them. Therefore, I do know something of the complexities, particularly in the manufacturing of such vaccines as we are considering today.
The first thing I want to say to the Minister, and I hope he will not misunderstand me, is that I regret that he is introducing the potentially more dangerous Salk vaccine which is being tested in America and not in this country. It is quite true that he has been advised by authoritative advisers about this, but I cannot but feel that two tests are better


than one. I cannot help thinking that this would not have been necessary except that the Minister has failed to think ahead. He told us, and I am quoting his words, that there had been unexpected delays in each of the four sources of vaccine. We know that unexpected troubles have happened, but these have not only happened in the last few months. The Cutter incident in America, in which case the Salk vaccine proved so dangerous, was in 1955. Therefore, he should have realised that some of the vaccines which he ordered might not have reached delivery point in time and therefore that he should have ordered more.
There are other reasons why I say that he has failed us in not ordering sufficient vaccines. One is that in other countries—as well as this, to a lesser extent—a third dose is being administered. Older people are getting the disease. Parents are catching it from their children. In our present state of knowledge, we feel that in many cases a third dose is necessary. Again, this was recommended by Salk in the United States in 1956. Since then the Medical Research Council has also recommended it—last November.
But the great reason why the Minister has failed is that he has not realised the type of disease with which he is dealing. It is a disease which in my view—and I think that it is generally accepted—can be eliminated only when a very high percentage of the population has been vaccinated. In primitive communities practically all the children get the disease early in life. When I was in Yugoslavia, five years ago, I found that they had no problem with poliomyelitis, because all the children got it. In the poorer parts of towns in the United States, where overcrowding exists, as many as 50 per cent. of the children have the antibodies in their blood. We want to have all people vaccinated twice and probably three times—certainly all children. This is not my idea; it the general scientific view. Surely the Minister ought to have known that many people would have come forward to be vaccinated, and he should have been ready for it.
The Minister should have taken more steps to provide us with a British vaccine. In spite of all that has been said by hon. Members on both sides of the Committee tonight, I feel that safer than the Salk vaccine, with the Mahony type of

virus, is the British vaccine, with the Brunender type, which is a less virulent organism. If by any chance some of the virus particles should escape destruction and get into the inoculated individual in the live form, there is less danger of serious results than there is in the case of the Salk vaccine.
Why did not the Minister take steps to have more vaccine produced in this country? Why did not he ask other firms to produce it, besides the two he has mentioned? I have seen the Glaxo film and I know the facilities they have provided and the excellence of their laboratory, but there must surely be other laboratories in this country. He has laboratories of his own, connected with his Ministry. Would it not have been possible to obtain a larger supply of the British vaccine from other laboratories, if not from those of Glaxo and the Wellcome Foundation? I very much regret having to say this, but I feel that in dealing with this important question the Minister has failed to look ahead.

9.35 p.m.

Sir Hugh Linstead: I have promised the Minister that I will sit down in time to allow him to make his reply. I will, therefore, be as brief as I possibly can.
I feel that I ought to make a reference to the speech of the hon. Member for Coventry, North (Mr. Edelman), because it did contain an innuendo which I thought ought to be dealt with in Committee, although I hope that I misunderstood what he said. If I heard him correctly, what he said amounted to this: that because the Minister had had some financial dealings with the two companies concerned there was a sort of unholy alliance between the Minister and the two companies whereby it was understood that to their advantage there would be no importation of foreign vaccine, or, at any rate, that the importation of foreign vaccine would be delayed.
That seems to me to be a most serious innuendo to launch publicly. We here have a responsibility personally for satisfying ourselves of the truth of statements of that kind that we make, and I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman, having that suggestion in his mind, took the ordinary precaution of finding out, by inquiry of the Minister or of the firms, whether


or hot there was, in fact, any such financial arrangement, or that any such undertaking was given, because if he did not it seems to me grossly improper for him to have launched that suggestion here tonight.

Mr. Edelman: The hon. Gentleman will no doubt read my speech tomorrow, when he will find that I addressed a question to the Minister, which I hope he will answer before the debate is over. In the meantime, may I ask the hon. Gentleman whether, in this matter, he should not declare his own connection with and interest in the Pharmaceutical Society?

Sir H. Linstead: May I say that I have no sort of financial or other connection with the production of poliomyelitis vaccine in any way whatsoever.
If I might continue to deal with the two points upon which the Minister has been criticised, they are, quite clearly, these: first, that he did not encourage the rapid enough production of polio vaccine in this country; and, secondly, that he did not early enough import Salk vaccine from America. Those are two quite simple issues. It is very easy to have what is called hindsight about these things, and most of the attacks on the Minister have been based on being wise after the event, which is far too easy a thing to be.
What we have to remember is that we are short at the moment, because of a mishap in production, of about 2,500 litres of this vaccine. We must also remember that the vaccine was coming off the production line steadily and satisfactorily until quite recently, and that there had been, from one firm, 188 batches, one after the other, coming through "Clear, clear, clear," without any sort of danger or failing in the tests.
There was no reason at all to suppose that suddenly, at the beginning of this year, there would be an unexpected slip in the production process. After 188 batches have been working satisfactorily, it seems unreasonable to criticise a Minister because the 189th or 190th should choose to fail for a reason which nobody could have foreseen.
As for the earlier importation of American vaccine, it is far too easy to be wise after the event. If any of us had

been asked, in 1955, whether a child of ours, or one for whom we had responsibility, ought to be vaccinated with Salk vaccine we would have said, "No". I had to advise in 1957 whether a child of someone I knew should be vaccinated with Salk vaccine, and it was only after weighing up the pros and cons with the greatest care, and with a very doubtful sense that I was giving the best advice, that I felt I could safely agree.
By 1958, I was certain that it was now safe to say that Salk vaccine could be used. The reason was that by that time the Salk vaccine had been tried on millions of people in America. What would have been a mistake in 1955 and a doubtful decision in 1957 is now a reasonable decision to take.
I have no doubt at all that in 1957 one would not have been right, if one had been responsible for the health of millions of children, to take the decision which, by looking back, hon. Members opposite are urging that the Minister should have taken.

Mr. Janner: Can the hon. Gentleman tell us atwhat time in 1957 he decided that the Salk vaccine was safe?

Sir H. Linstead: I do not remember precisely when it was, but it was probably in the summer. It is one thing to take a personal decision and another to take a decision which may affect millions of children.
There has been criticism of the Minister because he did not give larger orders. That is based upon a misunderstanding of the situation. As my right hon. Friend has said, this is not toothpaste or ice-cream, or something the manufacture of which is known and established. It is still in a stage of development. What the Minister has done is to say to the manufacturing firms, "I will take all your output." They have known that from the very beginning. The fact that it could have been put in another way, "Supply so many million doses", is neither here nor there as affecting the decision that was taken about laying down the plant.
I would answer the question: "Has my right hon. and learned Friend been right in the production methods that have been set on foot here?" Looking at the time when the decisions were taken, I say that they were right when they were taken. On the question whether or not


my right hon. and learned Friend should have imported American vaccine earlier, I am sure that he was wise to hold his hand until the very latest moment.

9.44 p.m.

Mr. Walker-Smith: My hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Sir H. Linstead) has made a characteristically constructive speech in this field which he knows so well and to which he brings so much expert knowledge and experience.
Though, as I indicated in my earlier speech, the debate has been regrettably short, we have, with one deplorable exception to which I will return with a little more precision in a moment or two, had an interesting and useful debate. Let me deal first of all with one or two specific points.
My hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart), in his very interesting speech, put certain questions to me regarding the supply of monkeys which are indispensable for testing purposes. We are, in fact, urging the Government of India to reconsider their position in regard to the restriction on the export of monkeys, but there are other sources which might prove to be satisfactory, for example, Africa.
My hon. Friend the Member for Clitheroe (Mr. Fort) also made a very interesting speech, bringing his expert knowledge to bear as a member of the Medical Research Council. I can, of course, assure him that I shall bear very closely in mind what he said, and the suggestions which he was good enough to make.
The hon. Member for Barking (Mr. Hastings) also made an interesting contribution. He was very anxious, as were other hon. Members, that British supplies should come forward as much as possible. Though we have been concerned here tonight with two companies, those are not in fact the only companies. There is at least one other company which is contemplating production of this vaccine, though as it is not so far forward as those two which have been mentioned, and its potential has not figured in our calculations in this matter.
Now I think perhaps it would be appropriate to deal with the speech of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Coventry, North (Mr. Edelman), before coming to the more general questions

which have been raised. I did not understand the hon. Gentleman to make a personal attack upon me, but I did not resent what he said any the less for that, because he did seem to me to be breaching more than one tradition of this Committee, because he was attacking advisers or consultants and people who have not got the opportunity to answer for themselves.

Mr. Edelman: Let me be allowed to say to the right hon. and learned Gentleman at once that I was attacking advisers in his person, for he is responsible for them, and he, in accepting advice today which he rejected last summer, when he was equally great, has shown that he is relying on advisers who are themselves contradicting their advice.

Mr. Walker-Smith: The hon. Gentleman knows quite well that I was not Minister at the time he has referred to. I say to him that I am concerned more with the specific suggestions which he made which have aroused the indignation, very properly, of hon. Members on this side of the Committee, and he has breached, as I say, more than one tradition of this Committee. He has attacked people and specifically selected advisers and consultants not only of the Ministry of Health but also the Medical Research Council. The Council as the hon. Gentleman knows or ought to know, is not part of the Ministry of Health and is not responsible to it.
He put to me these questions. He asked, are there any undertakings to Glaxo and Burroughs Wellcome that they should have priority? He also asked, have hundreds of thousands of pounds of Government money been spent on them on the recommendation of the Medical Research Council? The answers are these. No undertakings whatsoever have been given to Glaxo and Burroughs Wellcome. The Medical Research Council prefers British vaccine on purely medical grounds. So far as money goes, no money whatever, apart from the purchase price of the vaccine, has been given to those companies. [HON. MEMBERS: "The hon. Member must withdraw."]
The Committee may wish to know what sort of inquiries the hon. Gentleman made before making that sort of slander in this Committee. [HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."]

Mr. Edelman: Mr. Edelman rose——

Mr. Walker-Smith: Wait a minute. I want the hon. Gentleman to be quite clear first what I, and, I think, hon. Members on this side of the Committee, think about his intervention. In thirteen years in this Committee I consider that in the smears and unfounded allegations which he made against the Medical Research Council and against those companies he plumbed depths of squalor which I have not previously experienced.

Mr. Edelman: Mr. Edelmanrose——

Hon. Members: Sit down.

The Chairman (Sir Charles Mac-Andrew): The hon. Member should resume his seat if the right hon. and learned Gentleman does not give way.

Mr. Walker-Smith: I shall give way when I have finished with the hon. Gentleman's conduct. Behind the cloak of Parliamentary privilege the hon. Gentleman has behaved in a disgraceful way to make those allegations, and we shall look forward with interest to see whether he has the courage to repeat them outside where he will be mulcted in heavy damages if he does so.

Mr. Edelman: The sole function of Parliamentary privilege is to protect the privileges of one's constituents who should defended against the ineptitude, to say no worse, of the Minister. The fact is that owing to his negligence, millions of children are going to be unprotected this summer, and I charge against him that he is working up a synthetic indignation as a cover for his failure to provide that protection.

Mr. Walker-Smith: The hon. Gentleman is now, of course, trying to get away from the indecent smear that he has made. I would remind the Committee of something else which the hon. Gentleman said without one tittle of evidence. He said that the independent consultants to the Ministry were the same as the consultants to Glaxo and Burroughs Wellcome.

Mr. Edelman: I asked if they were.

Mr. Walker-Smith: I am told that no advisers of the Ministry are in any way connected with Burroughs Wellcome or Glaxo, nor is any member of the Medical Research Council, although the firms

may, of course, ask the Council, as may other firms, for advice. Once again the hon. Gentleman has abused his Parliamentary privilege in that way, and has made totally unsubstantiated and unfounded allegations and has disgraced his position in this House.
Now I turn, not without relief, to a more general and less disagreeable subject. As my hon. Friend the Member for Putney has said, there has been running through this debate the suggestion that we should have built up a stockpile last autumn of Salk vaccine. I have given in my earlier speech four reasons against this. Each one, taken by itself, is convincing, and the four together I believe to be overwhelming.
The Government acted on the advice of the Medical Research Council which I have read out. If we consider the position as it was then, the tide of British supplies was flowing strongly. I do not know by what superhuman exercise of foresight it is suggested that we should have anticipated the almost total interruption today. My hon. Friend the Member for Putney has pointed out how easy it is to make these criticisms with the advantage of hindsight.
Let us look at it the other way round. Suppose, in spite of the expert advice that we should limit the use of Salk vaccine to a temporary supplement awaiting British supplies, we had disregarded that advice, and large quantities had been ordered to make a stockpile of this perishable commodity; suppose that British production had continued to gain pace and gather strength and that nearly everybody had exercised his right to reject Salk; what would have been the position then? It does not require much imagination to see what the position would have been.
From Parliament, Press and platform we should have had scathing denunciations of the folly of the Government. The Public Accounts Committee would have wagged a sombre head. The Daily Herald and the Star would have gone into ecstasies of competitive vituperation. In Parliament Votes of Censure would have descended on the heads of the Government like thunderbolts, not just like speeches that we have heard tonight from the right hon. Lady the Member for Warrington (Dr. Summerskill). It would


even perhaps have brought in the old guard, the right hon. Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison), to do justice to the strength of the case. What a case it would have been.
We should have been asked: have not the Government disregarded the expert advice that they have been given? Have they not disregarded the clear probabilities of the case? Have they not extravagantly, foolishly and wantonly bought a perishable commodity which nobody wants, to build up a stockpile which cannot last? On second thoughts, perhaps the case would have been so strong that they could have left it to the right hon. Lady after all.
The Government's case is that we have acted with proper foresight and energy and in accordance with expert advice. We have taken some hard knocks in this business at the hands of fortune but we have not wasted time in repining nor have we stooped to recrimination. We have kept our heads and we have acted with resolution and energy to prevent these hard knocks from harming the interests of the British people. If anybody thinks that a Labour Government would have done half as well then he has forgotten the history of the failures and frustrations of 1945–51.
I understand that the Opposition mean to divide the Committee. If I had wanted to gain a mere party advantage for the Government I should have made a provocative speech in opening to force them

to divide, because I believe that the decision to divide tonight will gravely harm the Opposition, especially if it is a decision prefabricated in advance and taken without full knowledge of the facts or waiting to hear them. I believe that such a decision will be recognised in the country as being a compound of factual ignorance and party calculation.

That is why, for mere party reasons, I could have wanted a Division tonight, but, as those who heard it know, my speech was not cast in that vein. It was factual, it was expository, it was technical. It may well have been dull, it was certainly long, but it most certainly was not provocative. I hoped that the Opposition would be open to reason on this matter. I hoped that there would be no Division on this great human issue. I hoped that we should be able to go forward together to resume the advance of which fortune had momentarily deprived us.

I was wrong. The Opposition are evidently determined to put faction first in this matter. I say this in conclusion: let them go into the Lobby, if go they must, but they should go with shame in their hearts and defeat for their portion.

Dr. Summerskill: I beg to move, That Item Class V, Vote 4 (Ministry of Health), be reduced by £5.

Question put:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 220, Noes 286.

Division No. 105.]
AYES
[9.58 p.m.


Albu, A. H.
Champion, A. J.
Fletcher, Eric


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
Chapman, W. D.
Forman, J. C.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Chetwynd, G. R.
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)


Awbery, S. S.
Clunle, J.
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.


Bacon, Miss Alice
Coldrick, W.
Gibson, C. W.


Baird, J.
Collick, p. H. (Birkenhead)
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Collins, V.J.(Shoreditch &amp; Finsbury)
Greenwood, Anthony


Bence, C. R. (Dunbartonshire, E.)
Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.


Benn, Hn. Wedgwood (Bristol, S.E.)
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Grey, C. F.


Benson, sir George
Cronin, J. D.
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)


Beswick, Frank
Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Griffiths, William (Exchange)


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Darling, George (Hillsborough)
Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)


Blackburn, P.
Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)
Hamilton, W. W.


Boardman, H.
Deer, G.
Hannan, W.


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A, G.
de Freltas, Geoffrey
Harrison, J. (Nottingham, N.)


Bowdon, H. W. (Leicester, S.W.)
Delargy, H. J.
Hastings, S.


Boyd, T. C.
Diamond, John
Hayman, F. H.


Brockway, A. F.
Donnelly, D. L.
Healey, Denis


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Dugdale, Rt. Hn. John (W. Brmwch)
Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Rwly Regis)


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Dye, S.
Herbison, Miss M.


Burke, W. A.
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Hewitson, Capt. M.


Burton, Miss F. E.
Edelman, M.
Hobson, C. R. (Keighley)


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Holman, P.


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)
Houghton, Douglas


Callaghan, L. J.
Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Howell, Charles (Perry Barr)


Carmichael, J.
Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)
Howell, Denis (All Saints)


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Fernyhough, E,
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)




Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Messer, Sir F.
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)


Hunter, A. E.
Mikardo, Ian
Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke, N.)


Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Mitchison, G. R.
Snow, J. W.


Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Moody, A. S.
Sorensen, R. W.


Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Morrison,Rt.Hn.Herbert(Lewis'm,S.)
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Irving, Sydney (Dartford)
Mort, D. L.
Sparks, J. A.


Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Moss, R.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)


Janner, B.
Moyle, A.
Stonehouse, John


Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
Stones, W. (Consett)


Jeger, George (Goole)
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. (Derby, S.)
Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.


Jeger, Mrs. Lena(Holbn &amp; St.Pncs.S.)
O'Brien, Sir Thomas
Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)


Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)
Oliver, G. H.
Stross,Dr.Barnett(Stoke-on-Trent,C.)


Johnson, James (Rugby)
Oram, A. E.
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.


Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)
Orbach, M.
Swingler, S. T.


Jones, David (The Hartlepools)
Oswald, T.
Sylvester, G. O.


Jones, Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Owen, W. J.
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Padley, W. E.
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Paget, R. T.
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Kenyon, C.
Palmer, A. M. F.
Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)


Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)
Thornton, E.


King, Dr. H. M.
Pargiter, G. A.
Timmons, J.


Lawson, G. M.
Parker, J.
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Ledger, R. J.
Parkin, B. T.
Usborne, H. C.


Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Paton, John
Viant, S. P.


Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Peart, T. F.
Weitzman, D.


Lever, Harold (Cheetham)
Pentland, N.
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Lewis, Arthur
Prentice, R. E.
West, D. G.


Lindgren, G. S.
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Wheeldon, W. E.


Upton, Marcus
Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)
White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)


Logan, D. G.
Probert, A. R.
Wigg, George


McAlister, Mrs. Mary
Proctor, W. T.
Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.


MacColl, J. E.
Pursey, Cmdr. H.
Willey, Frederick


MacDermot, Niall
Rankin, John
Williams, David (Neath)


McGhee, H. G.
Redhead, E. C.
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Ab'tillery)


McGovern, J.
Reeves, J.
Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)


McInnes, J.
Reid, William
Williams, W. T. (Barons Court)


McKay, John (Wallsend)
Rhodes, H.
Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)


McLeavy, Frank
Robens, Rt. Hon. A.
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Woof, R. E,


Mahon, Simon
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)
Yates, V. (Ladywood)


Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)
younger, Rt. Hon. K.


Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfd, E.)
Ross, William
Zilliacus, K.


Mann, Mrs. Jean
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.



Mason, Roy
Short, E. W.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Mayhew, C. P.
Silverman, Julius (Aston)
Mr. Popplewell and Mr. Pearson.


Mellish, R. J.






NOES


Agnew, Sir Peter
Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry
du Cann, E. D. L.


Aitken, W. T.
Brooman-White, R. C.
Duncan, Sir James


Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)
Browne, J. Nixon (Craigton)
Duthie, W. S.


Alport, C. J. M.
Bryan, P.
Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)


Amory, Rt. Hn. Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.
Elliott,R.W.(Ne'castle upon Tyne,N.)


Arbuthnot, John
Burden, F. F. A.
Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn


Astor, Hon. J. J.
Butcher, Sir Herbert
Errington, Sir Eric


Atkins, H. E,
Butler,Rt. Hn.R.A.(Saffron Walden)
Erroll, F. J.


Baldock, Lt.-Comdr. J. M.
Campbell, Sir David
Farey-Jones, F. W.


Baldwin, A. E.
Carr, Robert
Finlay, Graeme


Balniel, Lord
Channon, Sir Henry
Fisher, Nigel


Barlow, Sir John
Chichester-Clark, R.
Fletcher-Cooke, C.


Barter, John
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Sir Winston
Fort, R.


Baxter, Sir Beverley
Clarke, Brig, Terence (Portsmth, W.)
Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)


Beamish, Col. Tufton
Cooke, Robert
Fraser, Sir Ian (M'cmbe &amp; Lonsdale)


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Cooper, A. E.
Freeth, Denzil


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Cooper-Key, E. M.
Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.


Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Gammans, Lady


Bidgood, J. C.
Corfield, Capt. F. V.
Garner-Evans, E. H.


Biggs-Davison, J. A.
Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
George, J. C. (Pollok)


Bingham, R. M.
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Gibson-Watt, D.


Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel
Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)
Glover, D.


Bishop, F. P.
Crowder,Petre (Ruislip—Northwoot)
Glyn, Col. Richard H.


Black, C. W.
Currie, G. B. H.
Godber, J. B.


Body, R. F.
Dance, J. C. G.
Goodhart, Philip


Boothby, Sir Robert
Davidson, Viscountess
Gough, C. F. H.


Bossom, Sir Alfred
D'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Gower, H. R.


Bowen, E. R. (Cardigan)
Deedes, W. F.
Graham, Sir Fergus


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A.
Digby, Simon Wingfield
Grant, W. (Woodside)


Boyle, Sir Edward
Dodds-Parker, A, D.
Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R. (Nantwich)


Braine, B. R.
Doughty, C. J. A.
Green, A.


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col, W. H.
Drayson, G. B.
Gresham Cooke, R.







Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)
Lindsay, Martin (Solihull)
Ramsden, J. E.


Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
Linstead, Sir H. N.
Rawlinson, Peter


Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G>
Llewellyn, D. T.
Redmayne, M.


Gurden, Harold
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. G.(Button Coldfield)
Remnant, Hon. P.


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Renton, D. L. M.


Hare, Rt. Hon. J. H.
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)
Ridsdale, J. E.


Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Longden, Gilbert
Rippon, A. G. F.


Harris, Reader (Heston)
Low, Rt. Hon. Sir Toby
Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)


Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon)
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)


Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Lucas, P. B. (Brentford &amp; Chiswick)
Robson Brown, Sir William


Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)


Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)
McAdden, S. J.
Roper, Sir Harold


Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Macdonald, Sir Peter
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Harvie-Watt, Sir George
Mackeson, Brig, Sir Harry
Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.


Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
McKibbin, Alan
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.


Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)
Sharples, R. C.


Henderson-Stewart, Sir James
McLaughlin, Mrs. P.
Shepherd, William


Hesketh, R. F.
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)


Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.
McLean, Neil (Inverness)
Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)


Hill, Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)
Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, w.)
Spearman, Sir Alexander


Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
MacLeod, John (Ross &amp; Cromarty)
Speir, R. M.


Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Macmillan, Rt. Hn. Harold(Bromley)
Spence, H. R. (Aberdeen, W.)


Hirst, Geoffray
Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)
Spens, Rt. Hn. Sir p. (Kens'gt'n, S.)


Hobson, John (Warwick &amp; Leam'gt'n)
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard


Holland-Martin, C. J.
Maddan, Martin
Stevens, Geoffrey


Hope, Lord John
Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)


Hornby, R. P.
Marlowe, A. A. H.
Steward, Sir William (Woolwich, W.)


Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.
Marples, Rt. Hon. A. E.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm


Horobin, Sir Ian
Marshall, Douglas
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)


Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)
Mathew, R.
Studholme, sir Henry


Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)
Mawby, R. L.
Summers, Sir Spencer


Howard, John (Test)
Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Hughes-Young, M. H. C.
Medlicott, Sir Frank
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)


Hulbert, Sir Norman
Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.
Teeling, W.


Hurd, A. R.
Molson, Rt. Hon. Hugh
Temple, John M.


Hutchison, Michael Clark(E'b'gh, S.)
Moore, Sir Thomas
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark(E'b'gh, W.)
Morrison, John (Salisbury)
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Hyde, Montgomery
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Thompson, R. (Croydon, S.)


Hylton-Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry
Nabarro, G. D. N.
Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. P.


Iremonger, T. L.
Nairn, D. L. S.
Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin


Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Neave, Airey
Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)


Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Nicholls, Harmar
Tilney, John (Wavertree)


Jennings, Sir Roland (Hallam)
Nicholson, Sir Godfrey (Farnham)
Turner, H. F. L.


Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Nicolson, N. (B'n'm'th, E. &amp; Chr'ch)
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Noble, comdr. Rt. Hon. Allan
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)
Nugent, G. R. H.
Vane, W. M. F.


Jones, Rt. Hon. Aubrey (Hall Green)
O'Neill, Hn. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.


Joseph, Sir Keith
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. W. D.
Vickers, Miss Joan


Joynson-Hicks, Hon. Sir Lancelot
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Kaberry, D.
Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)


Kerby, Capt. H. B.
Osborne, C.
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Derek


Kerr, Sir Hamilton
Page, R. G.
Wall, Patrick


Kershaw, J. A.
Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)
Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)


Kimball, M.
Partridge, E.
Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold


Lagden, G. W.
Peel, W. J.
Webbe, Sir H.


Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Peyton, J. W. W.
Whitelaw, W. S. I.


Langford-Holt, J. A.
Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Willams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Leather, E. H. C.
Pike, Miss Mervyn
Wills, G. (Bridgwater)


Leavey, J. A.
Pilkington, Capt. R. A.
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Leburn, W. G.
Pitman, I. J.
Wood, Hon. R.


Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Pitt, Miss E. M.
Woollam, John Victor


Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)
Powell, J. Enoch
Yates, William (The Wrexin)


Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T.
Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)



Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:




Mr. Heath and Mr. Oakshott.


Original Question again proposed.


It being after Ten o'clock, The CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report Progress and ask leave to sit again.


Committee report Progress; to sit again Tomorrow.

TELEPHONE SERVICE, GERRARDS CROSS

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Wills.]

10.9 p.m.

Mr. Ronald Bell: I wish to raise tonight the situation of the telephone service in one part of my constituency, namely, that part which is served by the telephone exchanges of Gerrards Cross and Chalfont St. Giles. I quite appreciate the magnitude of the task which was taken over by the Post Office and certainly by the present Government as a result of the backlogs of work which accrued during the war and the years immediately after.
I know that considerable progress has been made in the last few years in catching up on those arrears and reducing the waiting list for telephones. Nevertheless, I have a very serious telephone problem in my constituency of South Buckinghamshire, more especially in the Gerrards Cross and Chalfont St. Peter area. This area is served by two telephone exchanges, one in Gerrards Cross and one in Chalfont St. Giles. I hope that my hon. Friend, when he replies this evening, will, as I have asked him to do, address himself to the problem of all the subscribers on those two exchanges, whether they actually live in Gerrards Cross or Chalfont St. Peter or not.
The situation in the area has been difficult for a very long time. I have been raising the matter in correspondence with the Post Office and by Adjournment debates in the House ever since 1950. Especially since 1954, however, this area has caused me more anxiety than the rest of my constituency. In 1954, I began to receive letters from constituents enclosing communications from the Post Office to the effect that they would have to wait from two to five years for telephone connections.
I had an interview in 1955 with the Postmaster-General, then my right hon. Friend the present Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, and, as a result, I received from him, in September, 1955, a letter from which I inferred and, I think, my constituents also inferred, that

the situation in this area would be cleared up by about September, 1957.
It was, therefore, with considerable sorrow that, in 1957, I found myself still receiving from constituents in the Gerrards Cross and Chalfont St. Peter areas letters from the Post Office in which they were told that they would have to wait from two to three years for telephone connection. It seemed that all the progress that had been made in the two years from 1955, when I saw my right hon. Friend the Member for Luton (Dr. Hill), and last year, was that, whereas in 1955 the Post Office was giving itself rather a wide spread of wait, from two to five years, in 1957, it had begun to call it "from two to three years". In both cases, my constituents felt immensely dissatisfied.
I saw my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary about it, and he was kind enough to recognise that the position in this area was extremely bad. He wrote me a letter on 5th June last year, in which he said:
Chalfont St. Peter, though not so bad as some places in the country, is among the worst, and I agree that something must be done about it.
Then, in language which was extremely cautious, but cast in an optimistic mood, my hon. Friend described his plans for the future of the area, in which, although he was wise enough not to commit himself to any date, he certainly encouraged me to believe that telephone connections would begin fairly soon and that one might expect the position to be wholly cleared, certainly, within three years.
Naturally, after receiving that assurance, which I am sure my hon. Friend is doing his best to implement, I was not so worried when, in succeeding months, I still received letters from constituents. I told them that better things were on the way. It is right that I should say that a good many of my constituents in these two villages have been connected since then. But, unfortunately, I am still receiving letters from constituents enclosing communications from the Post Office telling them that they must wait two years for a telephone connection.
In those circumstances, I tabled Questions for the Postmaster-General which were answered on 12th March last, and he told me that 226 people were waiting for telephones in Gerrards Cross and that


he hoped, during the present year, to supply 110 telephones in that area. So it appears to me that, in about a year's time, of the 226 people now waiting for telephones in Gerrards Cross about 115 will still be waiting, together with the extra ones who have accumulated in that period. I foresee that in another year's time I shall still be receiving letters from constituents in Gerrards Cross and Chalfont St. Peter, enclosing communications from the Post Office saying that they will have to wait two years for a telephone.
I was a bit concerned when, on 12th March, the Postmaster-General said:
On the whole, the position is very satisfactory.
That is very different from the language that my hon. Friend used only a few months earlier when he said that Chalfont St. Peter was
among the worst areas and I agree that something must be done about it.
Of course, if a great deal of work had been done in the intervening period, one could understand the change of attitude, but the Postmaster-General told me, in answer to my Question when the work was to start:
The duct work is due to start in a few days. Cabling work will follow, and the new cables will be brought into use progressively."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th March, 1958; Vol. 584, c. 414.]
and I have reason to believe that no important engineering developments have taken place since my hon. Friend wrote to me, saying
this is one of the worst areas in the country, and something must be done about it.
Therefore, when I was told, on 12th March, that the position was satisfactory, I felt that I must raise this matter on the Adjournment to point out that, in fact, no substantial improvement has occurred in this area and that, so far from being satisfactory, the position is still one of the worst in the country.
I think that those are the only facts to which I need draw attention, and I can say compendiously that the position of the Chalfont St. Giles exchange may be aptly described, as I think the telephone authorities have described it in a letter to one of my constituents, as very bad; although I agree that from the Postmaster-General's Answer, on 12th

March, the prospect for the coming year looks a little more hopeful. But the present position is very bad.
While I appreciate the progress that has been made in the telephone service generally, I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will tell me that there will be some acceleration in this part of my constituency. I think that it is not good enough, thirteen years after the end of the war, that people should be asked to wait for years for an important public utility like a telephone.
I know that the comparison that I and others have made between the telephone service and other public utilities, like water and electricity, has been rather swept aside by arguments from the Post Office about the different nature of these services. I am not satisfied that the analogy is not a reasonable one. The capital cost involved in connecting a house to the water supply is by no means negligible. It often runs into hundreds of pounds, and frequently exceeds the capital cost of connecting a house to the telephone service even if an exclusive service is given and the lines have to go right back to the exchange.
If the difficulty is the amount of capital expenditure and its effect in a time of inflation, could not the Post Office consider charging people the cost of installation in a lump sum instead of spreading it over the rental for many years? Other public utilities do that, certainly the water companies do. If the subscribers are immediately charged the cost of installation, and the money represented by the work is immediately taken from them, the argument from the capital expenditure and its effect upon inflation does not seem to me to arise, certainly not with the same force.
It seems to me, and, I think, to many others, that when the State takes over a vital public service such as telephones, and establishes a statutory monopoly in them, it is not good enough that people should be put on waiting lists which stretch literally through the years. Constituents of mine have been waiting over two years for a telephone and some of them, presumably, will have to wait a great deal longer. Today, a telephone is a necessary amenity of ordinary life, and I hope that my hon. Friend will tell me that, at least in respect of this part of my constituency, he will be able to


do something which will reduce the waiting period experienced hitherto by so many people living in the villages of Gerrards Cross and Chalfont St. Peter.

10.22 p.m.

The Assistant Postmaster-General (Mr. Kenneth Thompson): When I die the names of Gerrards Cross and Chalfont St. Peter will be engraved on my heart. No one could have been more diligent and persistent than my hon. Friend has been in pursuing the interests of his constituents in these parts and, as I have said to him in the letter to which he has referred, we recognise that here is a situation of great difficulty for us and inconvenience for those who live there.
I think the House should have a clearer picture of why this is so difficult an area, for the record of the Post Office in the installation of telephones all over the country is really not a bad one, particularly in the last five years, as I shall show. Here is an area which has been, and continues to be, rapidly expanding. It has a type of development which we would call a heavy telephone density; that is to say, nearly everyone who builds a house in this area wants a telephone in it, and the houses are of a type which mean that a good deal of cable work is required to get the facility to them.
In parenthesis, I hope I can dispose of the suggestion that hooking up a telephone is a nice, neat job, easy compared with the fitting of water, gas and electricity supplies. There is a vital, important and frustrating difference, in that apart from the telephone installation itself within the house, there must be a separate pair of wires for each telephone, or in the case of a shared service, each two telephones, all the way back from the house or houses to the telephone exchange. If somebody else comes along, it is no use cutting a hole in a pipe and hoping that a supply will come through, as happens with gas and water. We have to find another spare pair of wires for the new subscriber and run them for him from his house to the nearest telephone exchange.
It is because of this vital difference in the supply of these services that we have found it difficult to keep pace with the development of these areas and one or two other areas of a like kind in various other parts of the country. Our problem

basically of satisfying my hon. Friend's constituents, with their very just complaints and their very great patience, is that we have been unable to keep pace with the rate at which the area has grown.
However, we have not been idle, either in the country generally, as my hon. Friend concedes or in these parts of his constituency. In the last twelve months we have installed no fewer than 227 new telephones for his constituents in an effort to make good the undertakings which I gave him when he saw me a little less than twelve months ago. A total of 361 applications over the two exchanges has still to be met, but, of course, new applications continually come along and as fast as we chop the list down at one end it grows at the other.
My hon. Friend rightly wants to know what it is that we are doing for the 361 people now waiting and what we shall do for others who come along afterwards. He quoted my letter. I know that he had no intention whatever to mislead the House, but I think it might help to clarify the minds of all if I read the whole of the three relevant sentences rather than leave the matter somewhat in mid-air. After I had said what we hoped to do, I went on:
This will mean that some people in Chalfont St. Peter will be getting telephones in the second part of next year.
The letter was written in 1957.
We shall not, of course, be able to serve everyone in this time, and we shall not necessarily be able to connect people in the order in which they applied, but it will be a start. Some people may be lucky even earlier if some of those with telephones give them up
What are we doing? Duct work and cable laying in the Gerrards Cross exchange area began some weeks ago, and we hope that it will be completed by December, 1959. It is a long, difficult and complicated job. As the duct work and cables are laid, telephones will be fitted into the houses served by whatever part of the cable is completed as it is completed, so that some people will be getting their telephones within a reasonable time.
The exchange itself has to be enlarged in order to provide the exchange equipment for the additional telephone users who are coming along in this growing area, and by next March we hope to have the telephone exchange enlarged by 1,000


numbers in order to meet the demand. My hon. Friend may be interested to know that while we are doing that we hope to be able to provide dialling facilities into London from Gerrards Cross, which are not available at the moment. In the Chalfont St. Giles telephone exchange area duct work and cable laying has just begun, and I hope that some of my hon. Friend's constituents will be able to see visible evidence of the enthusiasm with which the Post Office undertakes this work. There again, we hope to connect many of the applicants in the course of the coming months. In both cases it is the rate of house building which is eating up our resources as fast as we are able to lay them on; but we shall do all we can to ensure that the work is expedited as much as possible and that those who are waiting for telephones get them as quickly as we can put them in.
The House may be interested to know just how the problem which concerns my hon. Friend, because of his constituents, fits into the national pattern of what the Post Office is doing in the provision of telephone services. Since 1950, exchange lines have increased by more than a quarter, from 3½ million to 4½ million. That has necessitated our installing far more than the 1 million extra, since we have cessations and cancellations going on all the time that we are putting in new telephones. The waiting list, of which my hon. Friend rightly complains, has been reduced from 425,000 to 170,000. My hon. Friend may consider that he has a disproportionately large part of that waiting list in this constituency, and I am sorry if he feels that that is so.
The local cable network, which is the web around which the whole system works, has been increased by nearly a

quarter. In the last five years, the country has invested no less than £408 million in its telephone service, a not inconsiderable sum, a sum devoted to a service described, very accurately, by my hon. Friend as one which people expect to be available these days, and one which we have sought to make available. The rate of demand for telephones continues to be very high all over the country. It was to be expected that when the tariffs were increased in October last there would be some falling away of demand, and, of course, there was. There was an increase in the rate of cancellations. But demand has recovered remarkably well, and we have now got an anticipated annual demand, on present figures, of about 350,000 new telephones a year. This compares with about 400,000 at our peak.
The rate of cessations has fallen in the last few months, coming very nearly back to where we were before the tariff increase put a damper on our work, and I have every reason to hope that as we continue to provide more and better services over the telephone network as a whole, we will find these figures growing and the Post Office being called on to devote more and more time and energy to the provision of telephones.
I would like my hon. Friend to believe that the problems that he has highlighted in his remarks this evening about his constituents in the telephone areas of Chalfont St. Giles and Gerrards Cross are very much in our minds, and we will do all we can to satisfy their demands and relieve him of the onerous duty of constantly getting on to the Postmaster-General and his Assistant with complaints about our service.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-eight minutes to Eleven o'clock.